Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Craig Vs. Kagan Debate 2009

Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2011 1:03:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I watched this debate again and I have seen references on this site to Craig losing the debate.
"Is God necessary for Morality?"

I was hoping someone could detail their opinion of the debate for me and perhaps clarify Kagan's position for me.

1) I agree that this format was clearly unexpected to Craig as he did not even prepare a closing argument. I believe things were switched up on him at some point.
2) The questioning format allowed for Kagan to spend the majority of time "explaining" his viewpoint, which I am still unclear on in its being objective, and Craig was too much of a gentleman and allowed him to ramble on.

- Kagan's Objective Moral Contract
Kagan postulates that morals can be objective if all "reasonable" people make a contract together within a society.

If I understand this correctly then the Nazi morality was objective, so was the Viking moral code.... Is this not just calling something that is inherently subjective, objective? How does a moral code, defined by differing groups of people leave the realm of subjective?

The definition laid out by Craig is that:
-Objective morals are right/wrong whether anyone ever agrees with them. Rape is really wrong even if noone ever agrees with it being wrong...

To underscore this, the Vikings clealy had no problem with Rape. I fail to see any qualifiers that Kagan made with some "contract" making things that are clearly subjective, objective.

Let me know if you agree with Kagan and if you can clarify what he is talking about.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2011 3:45:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The argument was not that a group of people could agree and that would be objective, that would simply at most be universal if everyone agreed. The argument is that you can ask the question - what would a perfectly rational human do, and the answer to that is objective. Thus the social contract has terms which are decided by this hypothetical perfectly rational person. There is an extremely obvious problem with this argument and I was puzzled why Craig did not bring it up. The problem of course is that Kagan kept referring to objective morality being decided by this perfect human who would always know (by definition of it being perfect) the moral action in any situation. Does that remind you of anyone?
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2011 4:02:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Kagan's viewpoint (as I understand it) was essentially a thought experiment, whereby using things like the veil of ignorance, a social contract can be agreed upon by perfectly rational bargainers. A consequence of breaking this contract would essentially be how one would determine what is right and what is wrong, and this contract would be universally binding, so, contrary to what you said, Nazi officers could be shown to objectively wrong because they would essentially violate the terms of the contract, and this could be shown very easily by reference to the veil of ignorance.It's very similar to the social contract idea of in politics, where there are objective, universally binding and reasonably held rules which it is claimed people would be irrational to disregard. That' would be my best reading on it, having not seen the debate in a while, and not having read either of Kagan's books on morality.

As for your characterisation of the debate, I think pretty much everyone would say that Kagan won the debate . . . by a long, long way. Kagan hammered Craig on his zebra analogy, on his "why adopt the moral view" question, on his slide from lack of cosmic significance to overall significance, and the animal welfare point to name a few. In fact, I would go as far as to say that I don't think Craig got the better of Kagan on a single point that I can remember (and of maybe 50 debates I've seen Craig participate in, I think he's only lost maybe 6 or 7 of these, and in some of them against Atkins, Krauss, Payton and others have been as one-sided as debates can get).

As for Craig being a gentleman, some of things that the guy has said is totally outrageous. I can accept that he's a brilliant philosopher, debater and even a seemingly very able cosmologist and historian, but as a person, he's a bit of of a pie, pure and simple.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2011 4:19:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/17/2011 3:45:33 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
The argument was not that a group of people could agree and that would be objective, that would simply at most be universal if everyone agreed. The argument is that you can ask the question - what would a perfectly rational human do, and the answer to that is objective. Thus the social contract has terms which are decided by this hypothetical perfectly rational person. There is an extremely obvious problem with this argument and I was puzzled why Craig did not bring it up. The problem of course is that Kagan kept referring to objective morality being decided by this perfect human who would always know (by definition of it being perfect) the moral action in any situation. Does that remind you of anyone?

You pegged it.

I had to relisten and review. He does not discuss the "perfectly rational person" as the objective standard until the Questions phase. The first part sounds completely subjective with "rational persons in agreement" and Craig did call out the elements of the contract in his opening speach pointing to the subjective nature of it.

Craig did seem to miss the "Perfectly Rational Person" as the objective standard. I missed it too as I was also still thinking of the first explanation.

You are spot on. Kagan just completely admitted that God (the "Perfectly" Rational Person) was necessary for objective moral values.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2011 4:25:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/17/2011 4:02:50 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Kagan's viewpoint (as I understand it) was essentially a thought experiment, whereby using things like the veil of ignorance, a social contract can be agreed upon by perfectly rational bargainers.

Cliff just clarified it and was spot on, if it is perfectly rational bargainers, it is completely subjective and at most universal. If it is a set "Perfect" Rational Person, then he just admitted that God was necessary for truly objective standard as the Theistic claim is indeed that God is the epitome of perfect, especially considering the definition of rational.

A consequence of breaking this contract would essentially be how one would determine what is right and what is wrong, and this contract would be universally binding, so, contrary to what you said, Nazi officers could be shown to objectively wrong because they would essentially violate the terms of the contract, and this could be shown very easily by reference to the veil of ignorance.It's very similar to the social contract idea of in politics, where there are objective, universally binding and reasonably held rules which it is claimed people would be irrational to disregard. That' would be my best reading on it, having not seen the debate in a while, and not having read either of Kagan's books on morality.

As cliff stated above again, who defines rational. Kagan did later clarify it would be the conceivably "Perfect" Rational Person. He just coughed up God.

As for your characterisation of the debate, I think pretty much everyone would say that Kagan won the debate . . . by a long, long way. Kagan hammered Craig on his zebra analogy, on his "why adopt the moral view" question, on his slide from lack of cosmic significance to overall significance, and the animal welfare point to name a few. In fact, I would go as far as to say that I don't think Craig got the better of Kagan on a single point that I can remember (and of maybe 50 debates I've seen Craig participate in, I think he's only lost maybe 6 or 7 of these, and in some of them against Atkins, Krauss, Payton and others have been as one-sided as debates can get).

I do not think that to be the case, here is even an athiest that refuses to call it a loss for Craig.
http://commonsenseatheism.com...

As for Craig being a gentleman, some of things that the guy has said is totally outrageous. I can accept that he's a brilliant philosopher, debater and even a seemingly very able cosmologist and historian, but as a person, he's a bit of of a pie, pure and simple.

That was not very nice since you do not know the man...
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2011 6:12:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The point about perfectly rational bargainers isn't subjective, becuase it isn't their say so that dictates morality, it would be rationality itself. Again, this is just a thought experiment, but even conceding your point here and your next point as well - that this is essentially a Theistic model, you yourself even note that such a system is necessarily subjective! As you said,

" it is completely subjective and at most universal"

So you admit that Craig's own system fails by his own standard. Bullet. Foot. Ouch.

On the point about rationality, the veil of ignorance is a pretty good tool to use to sort out rational reasons for morality. If someone is asked for example whether torture is wrong without knowing whether they would be the victim or the perpetrator, it's easy to see how we get to conclusions pretty quickly, and using a standard which demands a certain level of objectivity. Of course, as Craig so often points out, this is a matter of moral epistemology, not ontology, and is therefore irrelevant on his own view. But suppose we take the same punt at Craig's divine command theory (which also leads to the point about Craig's character), and query its consequences, we might end up saying things like this:

Craig on discrimination against homosexuals

"Can you imagine? A Catholic adoption agency would be forced, under penalty of law, to give little children to male homosexual couples living together – men who might well be sexual predators or child abusers!"

"homosexual behavior is one of the most self-destructive and harmful behaviors a person could engage in."

http://commonsenseatheism.com...

I think he also called it a "disorder" in one his podcasts as well.

On the slaughter of Cannanite children:

"Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

There's actually loads more in this answer alone to justify what I said about Craig, and BTW, when atheists or a politician, or anyone else for that matter says similarly stupid and insulting things, I doubt one would hide behind the response you gave.

On the debate, I would just like to ask a couple of things: What points did Craig actually win on? Seriously. The format suited Kagan, the topic is Craig's weakest, and Craig was up against someone who didn't light far to straw men as atheists tend to do with Craig's moral argument. Even the review you gave lists nay a point Craig won, while listing more or less the ones I mentioned that Kagan won. Obviously, as Luke defends Desire utilitarianism, he doesn't agree with Kagan's approach, but that's okay.

As you admitted, most people who have expressed their opinion on this site thought that Kagan beat Craig up pretty bad. In fact, even Cliff thought this, if memory serves. The reason ain't some atheist conspiracy. I've said many times (most recently the Harris and Krauss debate with Craig) that the theist had won the debate, and had done so with better arguments. But Craig lost this one, and like his debate with Bradley, he lost it big.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2011 7:08:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/17/2011 6:12:42 PM, unitedandy wrote:
The point about perfectly rational bargainers isn't subjective, becuase it isn't their say so that dictates morality, it would be rationality itself. Again, this is just a thought experiment, but even conceding your point here and your next point as well - that this is essentially a Theistic model, you yourself even note that such a system is necessarily subjective! As you said,

" it is completely subjective and at most universal"

So you admit that Craig's own system fails by his own standard. Bullet. Foot. Ouch.

You seem to misunderstand.
1) If "rationality" is defined/measured by a group of people no matter how rational those people are it is subjective.
2) If "rationality" is defined/measured by a hypothetical "Perfectly" rational person, that would be God.

Number 2 is how Kagan finished. Kagan did not say "God" only pointed to the hypothetical "Perfectly" rational person as Theists define God.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2011 8:22:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/17/2011 4:19:46 PM, Gileandos wrote:

Craig did seem to miss the "Perfectly Rational Person" as the objective standard. I missed it too as I was also still thinking of the first explanation.

One thing to consider is that it is very easy for us to sit back in the comfort of our homes, plenty of time to watch, relaxed and consider arguments - but in the actual event it is not so easy. While I was surprised that Craig did not address that point, I would be more concerned with how he would comment on it now vs the fact he missed it then.

The question that comes out of it, when you cut past all the specifics and labels is the following - let us presuppose a morality which is based on the decisions of a omni-max being. A being who knows all, can consider all, who is benevolent and just, etc. . Now here is the thing - can we call this morality objective, the answer to this seems to be yes fairly readily. But here is the tricker part - can we say that it exists if the being does not exist?

That is the real difference, Craig's being (God) has to exist for Craig to say that the morality standard exists, however Kagan is explicit in that his being (the perfect human) does not exist but still the standard that such a being would have, that concept, he claims still exists. This I think is an interesting question.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2011 8:29:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/17/2011 6:12:42 PM, unitedandy wrote:

On the slaughter of Cannanite children:

Unitedandy, while I can understand how Craig's comments are in many ways offensive, how do you think any theist would answer the same questions, and not just Christians, but in general. All Religions have to be able to rationalize such behavior, either that which is from divine command, or that which is allowed by divine command. The bottom line in any case is that all of the actions have to either be allowed by God or God is impotent in the face of such actions. As the latter can not be true it has to be the former.

If you are going to hold such statements against Craig then all Theists are so condemned, Craig simply is outspoken. As an example, one of the central creeds in Hinduism is similar to (I am translating) - All that happened was good, all that is happening is good, all that will happen is good. Again, the deity there is all powerful (omni-max) and thus whatever happens, happens as it needs to. Now I am not saying simply because billions believe something it is right, I am just making the point would you be so willing to tar all theists with the same brush?
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 12:29:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/17/2011 8:29:36 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/17/2011 6:12:42 PM, unitedandy wrote:

On the slaughter of Cannanite children:

Unitedandy, while I can understand how Craig's comments are in many ways offensive, how do you think any theist would answer the same questions, and not just Christians, but in general. All Religions have to be able to rationalize such behavior, either that which is from divine command, or that which is allowed by divine command. The bottom line in any case is that all of the actions have to either be allowed by God or God is impotent in the face of such actions. As the latter can not be true it has to be the former.

This. Totally agree, even though I disagree vehemently with how he does go about rationalizing it, I think it's at least praiseworthy to try to find an answer to a potentially immoral action of God...

I mean, would you (not really sure who this "you" goes out to) rather he ignore the potential moral consequences altogether as too many Christians do? At least he recognizes the tough situation that atheists tend to criticize the general Christian public for being ignorant to. And so even if you disagree with how he does it I really think you should respect the fact that he does it, and that he, unlike the vast majority of theists, at least attempts to own up to the controversial parts of God's character that most people like to skip over.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 2:12:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/17/2011 8:29:36 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/17/2011 6:12:42 PM, unitedandy wrote:

On the slaughter of Cannanite children:

Unitedandy, while I can understand how Craig's comments are in many ways offensive, how do you think any theist would answer the same questions, and not just Christians, but in general. All Religions have to be able to rationalize such behavior, either that which is from divine command, or that which is allowed by divine command. The bottom line in any case is that all of the actions have to either be allowed by God or God is impotent in the face of such actions. As the latter can not be true it has to be the former.

If you are going to hold such statements against Craig then all Theists are so condemned, Craig simply is outspoken. As an example, one of the central creeds in Hinduism is similar to (I am translating) - All that happened was good, all that is happening is good, all that will happen is good. Again, the deity there is all powerful (omni-max) and thus whatever happens, happens as it needs to. Now I am not saying simply because billions believe something it is right, I am just making the point would you be so willing to tar all theists with the same brush?

Seriously? That's the defence? Firstly, I would say that not all theists do think the same. Some are as troubled as I am by passages such as these, and ones which are similar (Wes Morriston, for example), most try to explain it away in some way (Paul Copan's new book being an example), and some will give us the mystery card. But on a thread about objective morality, I find it odd that theists should get a pass for saying ridiculous things, so of course, anyone who says something like should be criticised. If this means that most theists will be, then so be it.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 2:36:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/17/2011 7:08:46 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/17/2011 6:12:42 PM, unitedandy wrote:
The point about perfectly rational bargainers isn't subjective, becuase it isn't their say so that dictates morality, it would be rationality itself. Again, this is just a thought experiment, but even conceding your point here and your next point as well - that this is essentially a Theistic model, you yourself even note that such a system is necessarily subjective! As you said,

" it is completely subjective and at most universal"

So you admit that Craig's own system fails by his own standard. Bullet. Foot. Ouch.

You seem to misunderstand.
1) If "rationality" is defined/measured by a group of people no matter how rational those people are it is subjective.
2) If "rationality" is defined/measured by a hypothetical "Perfectly" rational person, that would be God.

Number 2 is how Kagan finished. Kagan did not say "God" only pointed to the hypothetical "Perfectly" rational person as Theists define God.

Again, the determining factor for Kagan is rationality itself, not a group of people, and not God. I think this becomes clear when he repeatedly talks about rationality in the cross examination. Craig asks Kagan what the difference are between us and animals, and the answer is that there are reasons for us not to murder which we can recognise and are irrational to disregard. Unless you want to deny rationality as a possible objective source of morality, whatever else you think of Kagan's approach, it is at least an attempt to defend an objective moral system. As for the "perfectly rational bargainers" being God, the use of them is purely metaphorical, as is the social contract. There ain't a sheet of paper out there with moral truths, and there ain't any deliberators writing down its terms. Again, this much is clear when we talk about the social contract in political terms, so why take it so literally here? Likewise, the veil of ignorance isn't some actual, existing thing, it's a thought experiment.

Now, besides trying to discern the mystery of how your response answers my point, you still don't seem to realise that you conceded that a morality based upon a person, even an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly rational one is still subjective morality, as you said yourself. So again, according to your own words, Craig provides merely a subjective case for morality, not an objective one. Also, you seemed to only respond to a couple of my points, and the points you raised were answered in the bit you quoted me.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 6:38:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 2:12:36 AM, unitedandy wrote:

Seriously? That's the defence?

It was not a defense, it was simply a question, would you label anyone who would defend a omni-max diety by the same label.

Consider for example William of Ockham (the razor guy) whose response to the standard moral dilemma of an omni-max being was that if God so commanded an action, any action, then by definition it would be moral for us to follow such demands. This is the same individual who is recognized as one of the major fellows in medevial thought and contributed to physics, logics, and of course theology. Again I am not saying simply because the argument is popular/common it is right, I am just asking would you tar everyone with that same brush as a lot of people would come away so marked.

Note if Craig is rigerously pressed on this topic, every time I have seen him, he will answer similar to - we can not know why God would command something that appears to us to be obviously evil (thus he admits to us it appears to be evil) but that does not mean it can not exist. He then will speak of the mysterious nature of God and how it can not be expected that we could fully understand an omni-max being which is also atemporal. There is nothing illogical about this answer. Note individuals such as Hicks (well respected in their field) have long advocated far more radical responses to the problem of evil.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 6:46:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 2:36:39 AM, unitedandy wrote:

As for the "perfectly rational bargainers" being God, the use of them is purely metaphorical, as is the social contract.

Yes, but all that Kagan has done here is say - we can have a objective morality without God by simply using the standard that an omni-max being would have if such a being existed. The debate then turns into a semantic one about what does exist mean in the question "does objective morality exist". It is clear to see that Craig is arguing that the being needs to exist to claim that a standard which comes from it exists. Kagan is arguing the opposite that you can ake an objective morality from just the concept of such a being. Unfortunately this never really came out in the debate but it is an interesting point of contention.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 10:41:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/17/2011 3:45:33 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
The argument was not that a group of people could agree and that would be objective, that would simply at most be universal if everyone agreed. The argument is that you can ask the question - what would a perfectly rational human do, and the answer to that is objective.

Well, than Kagan sucks as a philosopher :P

Rationality doesn't lead you to any actions by itself.. and it's the Emotional/physical feeling parts of people which drives them to pursue what they do.

If those are different among people.. People end up pursuing different things.

and Rationality doesn't land you with a Standard of feeling either.. so his idea that perfect rationality = objectively moral actions fails.

Evil Alien bugs might be COMPLETELY RATIONAL but still decide to enslave and Lunch on humanity... If they'r not empathetic.. and Insanely Powerful.. why the hell not if they can?

Thus the social contract has terms which are decided by this hypothetical perfectly rational person. There is an extremely obvious problem with this argument and I was puzzled why Craig did not bring it up. The problem of course is that Kagan kept referring to objective morality being decided by this perfect human who would always know (by definition of it being perfect) the moral action in any situation. Does that remind you of anyone?

Jebus!
"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
4/18/2011 11:18:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 10:41:33 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
and Rationality doesn't land you with a Standard of feeling either..

though there are manners in which we do Clearly, for the most part, have similar enough tastes in things from Music to wine, to cheescake... to say Either that This is "better" than that, or He's a good judge of wine/can best identify "good" wines..

and I'd say there's a Degree to which we can hope for Ethics can be so regular..

but it's clear this is Subjective in Humanity.. and that it's not even universal Within humanity... For some people just don't care.
"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."
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 11:28:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 6:38:08 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/18/2011 2:12:36 AM, unitedandy wrote:

Seriously? That's the defence?

It was not a defense, it was simply a question, would you label anyone who would defend a omni-max diety by the same label.

Consider for example William of Ockham (the razor guy) whose response to the standard moral dilemma of an omni-max being was that if God so commanded an action, any action, then by definition it would be moral for us to follow such demands. This is the same individual who is recognized as one of the major fellows in medevial thought and contributed to physics, logics, and of course theology. Again I am not saying simply because the argument is popular/common it is right, I am just asking would you tar everyone with that same brush as a lot of people would come away so marked.

Note if Craig is rigerously pressed on this topic, every time I have seen him, he will answer similar to - we can not know why God would command something that appears to us to be obviously evil (thus he admits to us it appears to be evil) but that does not mean it can not exist. He then will speak of the mysterious nature of God and how it can not be expected that we could fully understand an omni-max being which is also atemporal. There is nothing illogical about this answer. Note individuals such as Hicks (well respected in their field) have long advocated far more radical responses to the problem of evil.

In response to your question, of course I would criticise any theist who would respond in a similar way, and I'm just puzzled why you wouldn't, if you believe in objective morality. A further point would be if your moral framework doesn't allow for criticism here, or much worse, it actually compels you to defend this, then I ask what good is it? Especially when we consider that Craig appeals to common sense to show morality exists in the first place, which goes right out of the window, unless one's moral intuitions is to feel sorry for those guilty of infanticide over the victims themselves. As for your second point, again similar points would apply, and I think we had a similar discussion on the problem of evil a month or two back. If one cannot say that slaughtering children is wrong, how on earth can they condemn homosexual relationships at every turn? In fact, our ability to criticise anything as evil would always be compromised, because it's always logically possible that even the most abhorrent of circumstances could also be interpreted as merely "apparently gratuitous". This is not even to mention all the epistemological problems that would be associated with this view, and all the other problems, such as there being reason to doubt the existence of such a God in the first place.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 11:45:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A person who's mulled over lots of wine, or tasted lots of cheesecake, can better point you in the direction of an awesome wine/cheesecake.. and Tell you exactly why they aren't quite satisfied with one which You, who lacks such experience, finds Good.

They might say "it's ok.. but it could be better.. This is what it's lacking, this is what's too much"

and if you listen to what they say, and get more experienced in the matter yourself, you'll understand and appreciate what they said... We have similar Palets, similar feelings in Relation to Wine/Cake

similarly we have a degree of similar feeling in regard to Events... and Some people who mull over things, weigh particular happenings against each other.. work out how it all fits together... can tell you the "drawbacks" of one approach which you might initially think is ok.

The highest aspiration of a system of Ethics should be to lay claim to Good, experienced, thoughtful, Taste! ;)

Now, this only works if you have similar Palets.. if one person just Doesn't think causing people Insane amounts of tortuous pain is a drawback... or if a person likes a vinegary wine.. they'll not be convinced by such an explanation, and there's no "objective" standard to submit.
"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
4/18/2011 1:28:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
however you don't need Objective morality to have "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."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 1:57:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
also even god's "morality" is based in the SUBJECT of god.

even God's morality is subjective.

and he wouldn't be able to convince someone who was of a different nature... like who wasn't Loving, that what He wants is what Ought to be.
"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."
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 2:18:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 11:28:31 AM, unitedandy wrote:

In response to your question, of course I would criticise any theist who would respond in a similar way, and I'm just puzzled why you wouldn't, if you believe in objective morality.

Because it is rational if you accept their paradigm.

If one cannot say that slaughtering children is wrong, how on earth can they condemn homosexual relationships at every turn?

Divine command theory.

In fact, our ability to criticise anything as evil would always be compromised, because it's always logically possible that even the most abhorrent of circumstances could also be interpreted as merely "apparently gratuitous".

We should debate the problem of evil, I don't see it as a problem at all, let me know if you are interested, and I don't mean the trivial logical problem I mean the evidential one.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 6:06:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 2:18:48 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/18/2011 11:28:31 AM, unitedandy wrote:

In response to your question, of course I would criticise any theist who would respond in a similar way, and I'm just puzzled why you wouldn't, if you believe in objective morality.

Because it is rational if you accept their paradigm.

If one cannot say that slaughtering children is wrong, how on earth can they condemn homosexual relationships at every turn?

Divine command theory.

In fact, our ability to criticise anything as evil would always be compromised, because it's always logically possible that even the most abhorrent of circumstances could also be interpreted as merely "apparently gratuitous".

We should debate the problem of evil, I don't see it as a problem at all, let me know if you are interested, and I don't mean the trivial logical problem I mean the evidential one.

Sure, I'll debate the problem of evil. If you're in the debate tournament, we should leave it in case we get paired up, if not, you'll probably need to wait a couple of rounds til I get knocked out. Don't worry though, I got Grape, so I'll probably be in it for this round, then the next round, as it is 2 loses. You shouldn't have to wait long.

As for your other responses, I just hope your response to the problem of evil better.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 6:34:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 6:06:20 PM, unitedandy wrote:

Sure, I'll debate the problem of evil.

Send me a PM when you are ready.

As for your other responses, I just hope your response to the problem of evil better.

There is an interesting irony there, I will leave it to the debate.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 10:16:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with unitedandy on craig here - his rationalization for the caananite's slaughter is ridiculous.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 10:20:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 10:16:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I agree with unitedandy on craig here - his rationalization for the caananite's slaughter is ridiculous.

What is your opinion of the "slaughter"?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 10:31:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 6:46:41 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/18/2011 2:36:39 AM, unitedandy wrote:

As for the "perfectly rational bargainers" being God, the use of them is purely metaphorical, as is the social contract.

Yes, but all that Kagan has done here is say - we can have a objective morality without God by simply using the standard that an omni-max being would have if such a being existed. The debate then turns into a semantic one about what does exist mean in the question "does objective morality exist". It is clear to see that Craig is arguing that the being needs to exist to claim that a standard which comes from it exists. Kagan is arguing the opposite that you can ake an objective morality from just the concept of such a being. Unfortunately this never really came out in the debate but it is an interesting point of contention.

To relay that question:
Does the perfect olive tree make the objective standard or does the measurement of maximum olives define the perfect tree?

Does that encapsulate what you are saying?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 10:35:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 10:20:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/18/2011 10:16:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I agree with unitedandy on craig here - his rationalization for the caananite's slaughter is ridiculous.

What is your opinion of the "slaughter"?

it probably didn't actually happen.. and moses didn't actually say what he said god told him..

it was all allegory.. and common for moral lessons of the time.

Of Course moses didn't have a whole people slaughtered.... the "killings" in these stories are really vast overrexagerations meant to convey a message

Otherwise.. God's a prick.
"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."
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 10:38:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Neatly put, yes that is what is the distinction. Craig is the tree defines the concept, Kagan is asserting that the concept defines the tree. Note there is a separate question of how to infer knowledge in either case, that is not trivial.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 10:39:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
also... Moses made god "reconsider" in that portion of the bible..

so... I can understand the impulse to say the bible isn't absolute/ needs generous interpretation.. b/c if you don't constantly go to great lengths to "interpret" it... it's plain Ridiculousness just slaps you in the face from the very beginning.
"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."
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 10:40:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 10:35:58 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/18/2011 10:20:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/18/2011 10:16:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I agree with unitedandy on craig here - his rationalization for the caananite's slaughter is ridiculous.

What is your opinion of the "slaughter"?

it probably didn't actually happen.. and moses didn't actually say what he said god told him..

it was all allegory.. and common for moral lessons of the time.

Of Course moses didn't have a whole people slaughtered.... the "killings" in these stories are really vast overrexagerations meant to convey a message

Otherwise.. God's a prick.
ha ha ha
'sup DDO -- july 2013