Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality proves God

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists
P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.
C4: objective morality exists.
P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.
P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless
C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.
P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.
P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.
P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.
C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 3:41:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Absolutely incorrect:

The Ten commandments show that God"s morality is relative to Him. (Meaning the God of Israel who is Creator and Judge) Because He is the only one who can fulfill them to His satisfaction. Hence the Ten Commandments are like Him. Note, He Himself has stated that the Ten Commandments are a covenant, (meaning agreement). Not with all of mankind, just Him and His People.

Morals are relative to the individual or to those who are in a agreement.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 3:54:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 3:41:34 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Absolutely incorrect:

The Ten commandments show that God"s morality is relative to Him. (Meaning the God of Israel who is Creator and Judge) Because He is the only one who can fulfill them to His satisfaction. Hence the Ten Commandments are like Him. Note, He Himself has stated that the Ten Commandments are a covenant, (meaning agreement). Not with all of mankind, just Him and His People.

Morals are relative to the individual or to those who are in a agreement.

(1) I never argued for the Judeo-Christian God
(2) You haven't rebutted my argument that rape and murder without cause is wrong objectively.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 4:03:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists
P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.
C4: objective morality exists.
P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.
P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless
C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.
P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.
P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.
P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.
C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

Exactly without God or objective purpose truly everything is meangless we are the ones who gives meaning to things which in reality doesnt exist, it becomes subjective, so no one can prove that to rob is wrong or right.
Never fart near dog
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 4:31:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 3:54:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:41:34 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Absolutely incorrect:

The Ten commandments show that God"s morality is relative to Him. (Meaning the God of Israel who is Creator and Judge) Because He is the only one who can fulfill them to His satisfaction. Hence the Ten Commandments are like Him. Note, He Himself has stated that the Ten Commandments are a covenant, (meaning agreement). Not with all of mankind, just Him and His People.

Morals are relative to the individual or to those who are in a agreement.

(1) I never argued for the Judeo-Christian God
(2) You haven't rebutted my argument that rape and murder without cause is wrong objectively.

Well then what god are you talking about? You did bring up the subject of a god here correct? What's with the arbitrary god's anyway? Are you making one up or what? Is it an unknown or unknowable god? Are you spit balling on what a god ought to be?

Besides again, morals are relative to the individual, or to those in a agreement. Objective morals don"t apply in reality.

Though you are correct about what you are thinking, but what you are thinking is incorrect.

Or maybe better said, no matter how many time you polish a turd, it"s still a turd.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 4:51:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

Can you explain this further? It isn't immediately obvious why an objective purpose is required for objective morality to exist.

P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.

For the record, I believe that objective morality exists. Your choices of acts to demonstrate it are insufficient, though. They're both subjective. What I consider to be sufficient cause for murder probably differ from what you believe, and we both probably differ from people from other cultures. The same goes for rape. It wasn't so Long ago that it was thought to be impossible for a husband to rape his wife. And in some Muslim cultures, sex with children as young as 6 is not considered rape. You have not shown that objective morality exists.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 5:28:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 4:51:03 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

Can you explain this further? It isn't immediately obvious why an objective purpose is required for objective morality to exist.

Because morality only entails purpose-driven behavior. Robbing, cheating, lying, killing, etc. If no objective purpose exists, no objective purpose-driven behavior can exist either.

P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.

For the record, I believe that objective morality exists. Your choices of acts to demonstrate it are insufficient, though. They're both subjective. What I consider to be sufficient cause for murder probably differ from what you believe, and we both probably differ from people from other cultures. The same goes for rape. It wasn't so Long ago that it was thought to be impossible for a husband to rape his wife. And in some Muslim cultures, sex with children as young as 6 is not considered rape. You have not shown that objective morality exists.

Murder without sufficient cause is always wrong, though correct? Even though you, having a different perspective on what constitutes as sufficient, would still find it wrong to murder without sufficient cause. This is the objective.

Your examples bring up the question - can anybody reject objective morality? If so, what is the motivation behind this rejection? If somebody commits an act that defies objective morality, does this disprove that they know it exists?

I am not aware of any society in the history of humanity that condoned rape or murder without sufficient cause. The example of those muslim cultures still have justifications for doing moral abominations. Why would any justification be necessary to do anything we see fit if no justification is needed?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 6:23:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 5:28:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 4:51:03 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

Can you explain this further? It isn't immediately obvious why an objective purpose is required for objective morality to exist.

Because morality only entails purpose-driven behavior. Robbing, cheating, lying, killing, etc. If no objective purpose exists, no objective purpose-driven behavior can exist either.

How does morality only entail purpose-driven behavior? There are people who claim it is immoral to sit by as evil is done. That isn't purpose driven in the slightest. Is it moral to stand by as a man drowns in the ocean if I am more than capable of saving him? If it is immoral to do nothing in that case, then morality is not about purpose-driven behavior.


P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.

For the record, I believe that objective morality exists. Your choices of acts to demonstrate it are insufficient, though. They're both subjective. What I consider to be sufficient cause for murder probably differ from what you believe, and we both probably differ from people from other cultures. The same goes for rape. It wasn't so Long ago that it was thought to be impossible for a husband to rape his wife. And in some Muslim cultures, sex with children as young as 6 is not considered rape. You have not shown that objective morality exists.

Murder without sufficient cause is always wrong, though correct? Even though you, having a different perspective on what constitutes as sufficient, would still find it wrong to murder without sufficient cause. This is the objective.

Your examples bring up the question - can anybody reject objective morality? If so, what is the motivation behind this rejection? If somebody commits an act that defies objective morality, does this disprove that they know it exists?

I am not aware of any society in the history of humanity that condoned rape or murder without sufficient cause. The example of those muslim cultures still have justifications for doing moral abominations. Why would any justification be necessary to do anything we see fit if no justification is needed?

They didn't condone rape because they simply called it something else. They didn't condone unjustified murder because they simply called it something else. The US didn't condone rape back when husbands were forcing sex on their wives with impunity because it simply wasn't called rape. Much like we didn't condone torture for the last decade because we simply called it something else. This goes beyond justification: it's a declaration that the thing being done is not something that is immoral, but it's something else.

Sure, ask anyone if murder without sufficient cause is immoral and they will probably tell you yes. But that just means they agree with the language you're using. Their concept of murder without sufficient cause is not the same as yours, meaning that the actual acts that are encompassed by that phrase are different for everyone. That means everyone has their own moral ideas when it comes to murder without sufficient cause. And the same goes for rape. There are still people who believe a husband forcing sex on his wife is not rape. There are people who believe that forcing sex on a prostitute isn't rape. I have no doubt that most people will agree with the words "rape is immoral." But the actual acts that are called "rape" will differ from person to person. If the only objective morality is agreement that subjective concepts are or aren't moral, then that isn't actually objective at all.
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 6:37:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists
P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.

Prove?

P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.
C4: objective morality exists.

Only if you can prove P3.

P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.
P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless
C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.

Again, prove?

P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.

If purpose is assigned by a sentient being, it isn't objective, but subjective to said being.

P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.
P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.
C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

Not unless you can address the points above.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 6:53:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

I take issue.

P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.

I take issue.

C4: objective morality exists.

Invalid. P4 and P3 will need to be re-organized or re-worded to make C4 conclusion.

P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.

I take issue.

P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless

I take issue. Plus, P6 has too much rolled into one.

C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.

I'm not clear that P5 + P6 = C6 is valid.

P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.

How do you know?

P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.

This should be a C.

P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.

There is no reason to think P10.

C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

C10 doesn't really follow. It seems more like a definition...
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:04:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 6:53:59 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

I take issue.

P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.

I take issue.

C4: objective morality exists.

Invalid. P4 and P3 will need to be re-organized or re-worded to make C4 conclusion.

P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.

I take issue.

P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless

I take issue. Plus, P6 has too much rolled into one.


Nvm about too much rolled into one.

C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.

I'm not clear that P5 + P6 = C6 is valid.

Nvm, it is valid.


P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.

How do you know?

P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.

This should be a C.

P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.

There is no reason to think P10.

C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

C10 doesn't really follow. It seems more like a definition...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:41:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 6:23:16 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:28:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 4:51:03 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

Can you explain this further? It isn't immediately obvious why an objective purpose is required for objective morality to exist.

Because morality only entail purpose-driven behavior. Robbing, cheating, lying, killing, etc. If no objective purpose exists, no objective purpose-driven behavior can exist either.

How does morality only entail purpose-driven behavior? There are people who claim it is immoral to sit by as evil is done. That isn't purpose driven in the slightest. Is it moral to stand by as a man drowns in the ocean if I am more than capable of saving him? If it is immoral to do nothing in that case, then morality is not about purpose-driven behavior.

Those examples still entail purpose driven-behavior. If somebody is drowning, but you sit idly by and do nothing, the behavior of doing nothing is immoral because you don't seek to act on a purpose of saving him. That's the reason it would be immoral in the first place.


P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.

For the record, I believe that objective morality exists. Your choices of acts to demonstrate it are insufficient, though. They're both subjective. What I consider to be sufficient cause for murder probably differ from what you believe, and we both probably differ from people from other cultures. The same goes for rape. It wasn't so Long ago that it was thought to be impossible for a husband to rape his wife. And in some Muslim cultures, sex with children as young as 6 is not considered rape. You have not shown that objective morality exists.

Murder without sufficient cause is always wrong, though correct? Even though you, having a different perspective on what constitutes as sufficient, would still find it wrong to murder without sufficient cause. This is the objective.

Your examples bring up the question - can anybody reject objective morality? If so, what is the motivation behind this rejection? If somebody commits an act that defies objective morality, does this disprove that they know it exists?

I am not aware of any society in the history of humanity that condoned rape or murder without sufficient cause. The example of those muslim cultures still have justifications for doing moral abominations. Why would any justification be necessary to do anything we see fit if no justification is needed?

They didn't condone rape because they simply called it something else. They didn't condone unjustified murder because they simply called it something else. The US didn't condone rape back when husbands were forcing sex on their wives with impunity because it simply wasn't called rape. Much like we didn't condone torture for the last decade because we simply called it something else. This goes beyond justification: it's a declaration that the thing being done is not something that is immoral, but it's something else.

Sure, ask anyone if murder without sufficient cause is immoral and they will probably tell you yes. But that just means they agree with the language you're using. Their concept of murder without sufficient cause is not the same as yours, meaning that the actual acts that are encompassed by that phrase are different for everyone. That means everyone has their own moral ideas when it comes to murder without sufficient cause. And the same goes for rape. There are still people who believe a husband forcing sex on his wife is not rape. There are people who believe that forcing sex on a prostitute isn't rape. I have no doubt that most people will agree with the words "rape is immoral." But the actual acts that are called "rape" will differ from person to person. If the only objective morality is agreement that subjective concepts are or aren't moral, then that isn't actually objective at all.

The same sense of some benchmark standard like "rape" and "murder" are still not condoned by any society. Even though they might engage in acts of rape or murder and justify it as something else, they morally reject rape and murder. It's the unifying moral sense that rape and murder is wrong, not the subjective interpretations or justifications as to what constitutes as murder or rape.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:44:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 6:37:58 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists
P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.

Prove?

Because no society in the history of humanity has ever condoned these acts, along with unifying moral sense that it's wrong.

P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.
C4: objective morality exists.

Only if you can prove P3.

P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.
P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless
C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.

Again, prove?

It depends on what you believe. Do you subscribe to a naturalistic origin for existence?

P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.

If purpose is assigned by a sentient being, it isn't objective, but subjective to said being.

From a perspective of human morality, our morality would all be objective to the sentient beings morality.

P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.
P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.
C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

Not unless you can address the points above.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:44:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 6:53:59 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

I take issue.

P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.

I take issue.

C4: objective morality exists.

Invalid. P4 and P3 will need to be re-organized or re-worded to make C4 conclusion.

P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.

I take issue.

P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless

I take issue. Plus, P6 has too much rolled into one.

C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.

I'm not clear that P5 + P6 = C6 is valid.

P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.

How do you know?

P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.

This should be a C.

P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.

There is no reason to think P10.

C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

C10 doesn't really follow. It seems more like a definition...

Explain why you take issues.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:49:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 7:44:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:53:59 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

I take issue.

P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.

I take issue.

C4: objective morality exists.

Invalid. P4 and P3 will need to be re-organized or re-worded to make C4 conclusion.

P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.

I take issue.

P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless

I take issue. Plus, P6 has too much rolled into one.

C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.

I'm not clear that P5 + P6 = C6 is valid.

P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.

How do you know?

P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.

This should be a C.

P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.

There is no reason to think P10.

C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

C10 doesn't really follow. It seems more like a definition...

Explain why you take issues.

Well, it's just that in order to make conclusions true, the premises must be true. So, I'm just not seeing why the premises I've identified are true. For example, why does objective morality exist only with an objective purpose?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:58:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 7:49:07 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:44:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:53:59 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

I take issue.

P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.

I take issue.

C4: objective morality exists.

Invalid. P4 and P3 will need to be re-organized or re-worded to make C4 conclusion.

P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.

I take issue.

P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless

I take issue. Plus, P6 has too much rolled into one.

C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.

I'm not clear that P5 + P6 = C6 is valid.

P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.

How do you know?

P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.

This should be a C.

P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.

There is no reason to think P10.

C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

C10 doesn't really follow. It seems more like a definition...

Explain why you take issues.

Well, it's just that in order to make conclusions true, the premises must be true. So, I'm just not seeing why the premises I've identified are true. For example, why does objective morality exist only with an objective purpose?

Because morality only entails purpose-driven behavior. If some actions are objectively right or wrong, our actions of purpose are objectively right or wrong. No purposeful actions can be right or wrong objectively if we have a purposeless existence.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:05:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 7:58:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:49:07 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:44:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:53:59 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

I take issue.

P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.

I take issue.

C4: objective morality exists.

Invalid. P4 and P3 will need to be re-organized or re-worded to make C4 conclusion.

P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.

I take issue.

P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless

I take issue. Plus, P6 has too much rolled into one.

C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.

I'm not clear that P5 + P6 = C6 is valid.

P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.

How do you know?

P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.

This should be a C.

P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.

There is no reason to think P10.

C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

C10 doesn't really follow. It seems more like a definition...

Explain why you take issues.

Well, it's just that in order to make conclusions true, the premises must be true. So, I'm just not seeing why the premises I've identified are true. For example, why does objective morality exist only with an objective purpose?

Because morality only entails purpose-driven behavior.

Sure. But does the purpose have to be objective? What would an "objective purpose" look like? I think they sound a little opposite. It seems like the having a purpose shatters the possibility for objectivity.

If some actions are objectively right or wrong, our actions of purpose are objectively right or wrong.

Weren't we just trying to figure out what "objectively right or wrong" is? It looks a little like you're defining something by itself, in my opinion. I could be wrong.

No purposeful actions can be right or wrong objectively if we have a purposeless existence.

Well, if we have purposeful actions then we don't have a purposeless existence, right?
dee-em
Posts: 6,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:07:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists
P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.
C4: objective morality exists.
P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.
P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless
C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.
P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.
P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.
P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.
C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

Please define "sufficient cause". That sounds mightily subjective to me.

I'm interested in what objective morality says about:

1. Human sacrifice
2. Torture
3. Burning a person alive

Are these always wrong or does "sufficient cause" apply here too?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:14:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:05:27 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:58:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:49:07 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:44:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:53:59 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

I take issue.

P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.

I take issue.

C4: objective morality exists.

Invalid. P4 and P3 will need to be re-organized or re-worded to make C4 conclusion.

P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.

I take issue.

P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless

I take issue. Plus, P6 has too much rolled into one.

C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.

I'm not clear that P5 + P6 = C6 is valid.

P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.

How do you know?

P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.

This should be a C.

P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.

There is no reason to think P10.

C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

C10 doesn't really follow. It seems more like a definition...

Explain why you take issues.

Well, it's just that in order to make conclusions true, the premises must be true. So, I'm just not seeing why the premises I've identified are true. For example, why does objective morality exist only with an objective purpose?

Because morality only entails purpose-driven behavior.

Sure. But does the purpose have to be objective? What would an "objective purpose" look like? I think they sound a little opposite. It seems like the having a purpose shatters the possibility for objectivity.

A purpose to not murder without sufficient cause or to rape somebody is evidenced by objective morality (a moral sense that we should not do this behavior).

If some actions are objectively right or wrong, our actions of purpose are objectively right or wrong.

Weren't we just trying to figure out what "objectively right or wrong" is? It looks a little like you're defining something by itself, in my opinion. I could be wrong.

It means that everyone knows that certain behaviors in certain circumstances are always wrong. Rape and murder without sufficient cause for example.

No purposeful actions can be right or wrong objectively if we have a purposeless existence.

Well, if we have purposeful actions then we don't have a purposeless existence, right?

If we have purposeful actions that are neither right or wrong objectively, all morality would be subjective but this isn't the case given the two examples of objectively immoral behavior given above.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:26:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:07:10 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists
P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.
C4: objective morality exists.
P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.
P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless
C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.
P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.
P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.
P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.
C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

Please define "sufficient cause". That sounds mightily subjective to me.

The moral sense that one needs "sufficient cause" is an objective moral standard. Why would one even need sufficient cause if anyone can do whatever they see fit?

I'm interested in what objective morality says about:.

1. Human sacrifice
2. Torture
3. Burning a person alive

Are these always wrong or does "sufficient cause" apply here too?

Have people ever made excuses, justified, or placed blame for engaging in selfish behavior? Yes. Does acting in a way that defies objective morality disprove that one had a moral sense that it was wrong? No. It's without question that people have a unifying sense that in some instances, morality is objective. Even famous serial murderers, who've killed and raped for their sexual own pleasure like Jeffreh Dahmer and Ted Bundy have admitted that they know what they've done is wrong "in the eyes of God."

Has any society, in any record of human existence, condoned rape or murder without sufficient cause? And why not if all morality is subjective?
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:39:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 7:44:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:37:58 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists
P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.

Prove?

Because no society in the history of humanity has ever condoned these acts, along with unifying moral sense that it's wrong.

You can't really prove that unless you have detailed records of every society that ever existed. And then you would also need proof that you didn't miss any society.
Anyway, there actually have been societies in which nobody cared how you treated your slaves, including raping and killing them.
Additionally, a lot of people commit rape and murder or condone such acts.
And if it is just for one person not wrong to rape or murder someone without sufficient cause (which is also defined differently by everybody/ every society), then it is not objective, as it is not always true.


P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.
C4: objective morality exists.

Only if you can prove P3.

P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.
P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless
C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.

Again, prove?

It depends on what you believe. Do you subscribe to a naturalistic origin for existence?

It do believe that existence, as a whole, has no origin.
If you mean Humanity's existence, then yes.


P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.

If purpose is assigned by a sentient being, it isn't objective, but subjective to said being.

From a perspective of human morality, our morality would all be objective to the sentient beings morality.

I don't even see where you draw morals from that.
Let's say said being assigned us with a specific purpose.
So in your mind, fulfilling that purpose is right and not fulfilling it is wrong, correct?

But why? All I see is that I can either do what I want or what said beings wants me to do, with neither action being objectively right or wrong, but simply preferable to either me or said being.
If I were to have a kid with the intention that it will take care of me when I am old. But it refuses to do so, would that be immoral, since the kid would refuse to fulfill the purpose for which it was created? Or would it simply be a conflict of interests, with neither side being right or wrong?

Further, objective, as you defined is always true without exception, would mean it is always true to kill someone without sufficient cause. So even if not killing somebody doesn't serve any purpose at all, it would still be wrong.
However, by your logic, if it doesn't serve any purpose to let somebody live, then it would be morally acceptable to kill said person.
Unless you're arguing that "Why not?" is a sufficient cause.


P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.
P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.
C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

Not unless you can address the points above.
mrsatan
Posts: 429
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:42:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 5:28:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 4:51:03 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

Can you explain this further? It isn't immediately obvious why an objective purpose is required for objective morality to exist.

Because morality only entails purpose-driven behavior. Robbing, cheating, lying, killing, etc. If no objective purpose exists, no objective purpose-driven behavior can exist either.

I disagree with this assessment. A persons' morality isn't dependent upon behavior. A person can be moral in character, and at the same time, immoral in action (or vice versa). Intending and attempting to do good, yet failing due to poor judgement and ultimately doing bad. Furthermore, the morality of the behavior is not dependent upon the purpose, the intent, but rather the result.

And even if you disagree with that, the purpose of an action is dependent upon the intent of the person taking that action. For example, say I noticed something on fire close to my neighbors house, and I put it out. Do you know what my purpose was from the action alone? Doubtful, because their are multiple possibilities. I could have done it because I like my neighbor and simply don't want his house to burn down. Or I could have done it because I didn't want to risk it spreading to my own house, even though my neighbors a total a**hat and wouldn't care if his house burned down (in truth, I have nothing against my neighbors). Point being, there is no objective purpose because intent is subjective.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:00:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists
P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.
C4: objective morality exists.
P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.
P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless
C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.
P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.
P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.
P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.
C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

There's no such thing as objective morality. Morality is subjective, and depends upon the particular society it serves.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:24:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:14:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:05:27 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:58:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:49:07 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:44:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:53:59 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
That seems like a loaded statement but it's actually logical if you dissect the argument for objective morality.

P1: Objective morality can only exist if an objective purpose exists

I take issue.

P2: No objective purpose exists
C2: objective morality can't exist.
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.
P4: if something is always true without exception, it is objective.

I take issue.

C4: objective morality exists.

Invalid. P4 and P3 will need to be re-organized or re-worded to make C4 conclusion.

P5: if objective morality exists, we have an objective purpose of our existence.

I take issue.

P6: an objective purpose of our existence is logically impossible if our existence began as objectively purposeless

I take issue. Plus, P6 has too much rolled into one.

C6: existence did not begin as objectively purposeless.

I'm not clear that P5 + P6 = C6 is valid.

P7: objective purpose can only be assigned by sentient beings.

How do you know?

P8. Since objective purpose exists, it can only exist because it was assigned by a sentient being.

This should be a C.

P9: objective morality exists because an objective purpose has been assigned to us by a sentient being.
P10: if all human beings share the same objective purpose, this purpose was assigned by the same sentient being.

There is no reason to think P10.

C10: God is the sentient being that gave us objective morality.

C10 doesn't really follow. It seems more like a definition...

Explain why you take issues.

Well, it's just that in order to make conclusions true, the premises must be true. So, I'm just not seeing why the premises I've identified are true. For example, why does objective morality exist only with an objective purpose?

Because morality only entails purpose-driven behavior.

Sure. But does the purpose have to be objective? What would an "objective purpose" look like? I think they sound a little opposite. It seems like the having a purpose shatters the possibility for objectivity.

A purpose to not murder without sufficient cause or to rape somebody is evidenced by objective morality (a moral sense that we should not do this behavior).

If some actions are objectively right or wrong, our actions of purpose are objectively right or wrong.

Weren't we just trying to figure out what "objectively right or wrong" is? It looks a little like you're defining something by itself, in my opinion. I could be wrong.

It means that everyone knows that certain behaviors in certain circumstances are always wrong. Rape and murder without sufficient cause for example.

No purposeful actions can be right or wrong objectively if we have a purposeless existence.

Well, if we have purposeful actions then we don't have a purposeless existence, right?

If we have purposeful actions that are neither right or wrong objectively, all morality would be subjective but this isn't the case given the two examples of objectively immoral behavior given above.

I think I'll let the rest of the internet handle this. Thanks for the thought experiment.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:02:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:26:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Has any society, in any record of human existence, condoned rape or murder without sufficient cause?

Nah, ya need a god for that.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:07:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Murder and rape with the qualifier of "without sufficient cause". Wow! That certainly helps highlight the problem with Christianity. These "loving, tolerant" people believe that rape and murder can be justified. "Murder" by the way, is killing which is deemed unjustified.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:13:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 10:07:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
Murder and rape with the qualifier of "without sufficient cause". Wow! That certainly helps highlight the problem with Christianity. These "loving, tolerant" people believe that rape and murder can be justified. "Murder" by the way, is killing which is deemed unjustified.

Ahh yes but their objective morality is subject to their opinion.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:18:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 3:27:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P3: murder without sufficient cause and rape are always wrong without exception.

You've already supplied the exception. "sufficient cause"

Fail.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:22:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 10:13:00 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 10:07:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
Murder and rape with the qualifier of "without sufficient cause". Wow! That certainly helps highlight the problem with Christianity. These "loving, tolerant" people believe that rape and murder can be justified. "Murder" by the way, is killing which is deemed unjustified.

Ahh yes but their objective morality is subject to their opinion.

Wrong again. Let me explain this to you again. Morality is subjective within the needs of the given society. Show me a society today which finds that rape and murder are beneficial to the health of the society itself. It's not a matter of opinion. Some behaviors work in some societies, which do not work in others. But rape, murder and slavery have been ruled out of essentially all societies because they do not work to benefit society as a whole.

The subjectivity of morality is within it's social impact, not individual opinion. Is that really so hard for you to comprehend?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:26:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 10:22:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 10:13:00 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 10:07:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
Murder and rape with the qualifier of "without sufficient cause". Wow! That certainly helps highlight the problem with Christianity. These "loving, tolerant" people believe that rape and murder can be justified. "Murder" by the way, is killing which is deemed unjustified.

Ahh yes but their objective morality is subject to their opinion.

Wrong again. Let me explain this to you again. Morality is subjective within the needs of the given society. Show me a society today which finds that rape and murder are beneficial to the health of the society itself. It's not a matter of opinion. Some behaviors work in some societies, which do not work in others. But rape, murder and slavery have been ruled out of essentially all societies because they do not work to benefit society as a whole.

The subjectivity of morality is within it's social impact, not individual opinion. Is that really so hard for you to comprehend?

Nah I get, Li'l Benny don't. I think my sarcasm was missed.