Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moral Argument - Reasonable Faith debate...

Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:55:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm just looking for other perspectives on a little discussion I'm in the middle of. Am I missing something or is this guy just dense? Basically, here's how it's gone so far...

Him:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Cryo: Can you demonstrate that objective moral values and duties exist?
Him: If objective morality doesn't exist then you can't say it's wrong to rape and murder innocent babies. (*notice the cheap shock tactic and appeal to emotion)
Cryo: I could, and most people would agree with me, it just wouldn't be objective. Can you prove that there are objective morals and duties?
Him: I don't have to prove objective morals exist, I'm only saying that if they did exist, then God would necessarily have to exist.
Cryo: Hold on, the 2nd premise of your argument is: "Objective morals and duties do exist". I'm only asking you to justify this claim.
Him: It is objectively wrong to rape and murder innocent babies. Do you really wish to deny this claim?
Cryo: *Lengthy response explaining why I don't believe there is an absolute, objective standard of morality but that doesn't mean I think raping and murdering babies is acceptable, and how humans have a shared desire to purse certain outcomes over others because of our instincts for survival and reproduction along with our minds' capacity for empathy and consideration of abstract concepts like morality and ethics. Ask if we can we drop the whole "raping and murdering babies" thing because it contributes nothing to the argument. Conclude by reiterating my question: Can you demonstrate that objective morality exists?*
Him: I can demonstrate objective morality. Raping and murdering innocent babies is objectively wrong.
Cryo: That's not an argument. You don't prove something is objectively wrong simply by asserting that it is. How about this, can you at least define objective morality?
Him: Objective morality means things are right or wrong no matter what your opinion. This concept could not exist without God.
Cryo: Don't you see the problem with that? You can't just say that if objective morals exist then God exists, because without God objective morals wouldn't exist. It's circular logic. If you can't justify a premise without invoking the very conclusion you're trying to prove, your argument fails.
Him: *Ignores my point about him using circular logic. Repeats himself, this time in all caps, that OBJECTIVE MORAL DUTIES AND VALUES DO EXIST*
Cryo: *I remind him, yet again, that he has failed to support the premises of his argument and is now backpedaling. I then ask him how he knows objective morals exist, how he determined that what he sees as objective aren't actually subjective?*
Him: Okay fine, just keep making the claim that there's nothing objectively wrong with raping and murdering little babies.. But even some atheists believe there is objective morality, but keep thinking what you want.
Cryo: *I call him out on not having any justifications for his argument's premises. I call him out, again, for resorting to the baby example for shock value and strawmanning my moral position. I point out that whatever "objective" standards atheists may point to, they are fundamentally different to the "objective" morality he is referencing, and to try and equivocate the two and shoehorn it into his argument is dishonest.*
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:08:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:55:05 PM, Cryo wrote:
I'm just looking for other perspectives on a little discussion I'm in the middle of. Am I missing something or is this guy just dense? Basically, here's how it's gone so far...

Him:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Cryo: Can you demonstrate that objective moral values and duties exist?
Him: If objective morality doesn't exist then you can't say it's wrong to rape and murder innocent babies. (*notice the cheap shock tactic and appeal to emotion)
Cryo: I could, and most people would agree with me, it just wouldn't be objective. Can you prove that there are objective morals and duties?
Him: I don't have to prove objective morals exist, I'm only saying that if they did exist, then God would necessarily have to exist.
Cryo: Hold on, the 2nd premise of your argument is: "Objective morals and duties do exist". I'm only asking you to justify this claim.
Him: It is objectively wrong to rape and murder innocent babies. Do you really wish to deny this claim?
Cryo: *Lengthy response explaining why I don't believe there is an absolute, objective standard of morality but that doesn't mean I think raping and murdering babies is acceptable, and how humans have a shared desire to purse certain outcomes over others because of our instincts for survival and reproduction along with our minds' capacity for empathy and consideration of abstract concepts like morality and ethics. Ask if we can we drop the whole "raping and murdering babies" thing because it contributes nothing to the argument. Conclude by reiterating my question: Can you demonstrate that objective morality exists?*
Him: I can demonstrate objective morality. Raping and murdering innocent babies is objectively wrong.
Cryo: That's not an argument. You don't prove something is objectively wrong simply by asserting that it is. How about this, can you at least define objective morality?
Him: Objective morality means things are right or wrong no matter what your opinion. This concept could not exist without God.
Cryo: Don't you see the problem with that? You can't just say that if objective morals exist then God exists, because without God objective morals wouldn't exist. It's circular logic. If you can't justify a premise without invoking the very conclusion you're trying to prove, your argument fails.
Him: *Ignores my point about him using circular logic. Repeats himself, this time in all caps, that OBJECTIVE MORAL DUTIES AND VALUES DO EXIST*
Cryo: *I remind him, yet again, that he has failed to support the premises of his argument and is now backpedaling. I then ask him how he knows objective morals exist, how he determined that what he sees as objective aren't actually subjective?*
Him: Okay fine, just keep making the claim that there's nothing objectively wrong with raping and murdering little babies.. But even some atheists believe there is objective morality, but keep thinking what you want.
Cryo: *I call him out on not having any justifications for his argument's premises. I call him out, again, for resorting to the baby example for shock value and strawmanning my moral position. I point out that whatever "objective" standards atheists may point to, they are fundamentally different to the "objective" morality he is referencing, and to try and equivocate the two and shoehorn it into his argument is dishonest.*

Are you really debating him? Because this is a hillarious ripping of him.

But in any case - you are making no progress here. Just underline your position - that objective morals haven't been shown to exist, thus the premise and argument has not been shown to stand. Move on to something else, perhaps by attacking first premise, since he is just repeating his script. Waste of time.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:39:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:55:05 PM, Cryo wrote:
I'm just looking for other perspectives on a little discussion I'm in the middle of. Am I missing something or is this guy just dense? Basically, here's how it's gone so far...

Him:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Cryo, a lot of theists conflate absolute morality and objective morality. Essentially, they want the only morality to be that of theological tradition, and chaos to ensue without those unquestioned traditions. If we follow them down that rabbit-hole we're lost.

Let's describe morality as the study of and application of what's good and bad for us; and let's further describe moral or good acts as acts accountable for producing good for ourselves and others, and immoral or evil acts as those knowingly and systematically designed to hurt, harm or destroy good for ourselves or others (and typically evading accountability for doing so.)

Can we ascertain these distinctions objectively and independently, using medicine, psychological studies and sociological studies?

Of course we can.

But can we know absolutely all the impacts of our actions without prolonged inquiry and investigation?

Of course we can't.

And will there be many gray areas and trade-offs, requiring ethical reflection to resolve?

Of course.

So isn't morality objective, but emergent? And doesn't it simply need compassionate, objective inquiry?

And isn't God simply an appeal to theological authority -- an authority founded on ignorance, deceit and evasion?

And hasn't theology been wrong about everything that we need to inform a serious and informed moral discussion: physics, geology, history, medicine, biology, climatology and the environment, psychology, sociology? And hasn't it always avoided accountability for its errors, while claiming authority with no evidence at all of its correctness?

So isn't it true that not only is morality objective and emergent, but that theology has no place claiming authority in any serious moral conversation?

I hope that may help. :)
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:53:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:08:28 PM, Envisage wrote:

Are you really debating him? Because this is a hillarious ripping of him.

But in any case - you are making no progress here. Just underline your position - that objective morals haven't been shown to exist, thus the premise and argument has not been shown to stand. Move on to something else, perhaps by attacking first premise, since he is just repeating his script. Waste of time.

Well it's not a formal debate of course, but it is pretty bad now that I see it all at once. I tried to get through to him, but the fact that I rejected his 2nd premise just made me look like an absolute sociopath in his eyes and he just couldn't get over that. I agree that it's going nowhere and I should go after the 1st premise instead. I wanted to in the beginning, but I just got caught up in the discussion.

I have heard people argue that there can be an objective morality without God, but I don't know if I agree with that. I mean, we can point to science and say, objectively, that without food and water, the human body will die. So in order to live, we need eat and drink enough food and water. That's a fact, but to say that it is morally right to feed people and morally wrong to starve them, is ultimately an opinion.

In other words, we can set objective standards, but to say that we should pursue those standards is a subjective claim, based on context and perspective, is it not?

I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud... thinking in text...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:02:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:53:38 PM, Cryo wrote:
*Shrug*

Well, I am a moral nihilism - yet I have pretty sophisticated stances on society, values, and applied ethics. I find objective morality appeals to disgust to be a complete red herring to the argument, since it is insufficient to demonstrate their premise of objective morality existing.

I don't know how appealing to subjective sense, or feeling on the matter is mean't to justify that something is objective - seems oxymoronic to me.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:52:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:39:31 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:55:05 PM, Cryo wrote:
I'm just looking for other perspectives on a little discussion I'm in the middle of. Am I missing something or is this guy just dense? Basically, here's how it's gone so far...

Him:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Cryo, a lot of theists conflate absolute morality and objective morality. Essentially, they want the only morality to be that of theological tradition, and chaos to ensue without those unquestioned traditions. If we follow them down that rabbit-hole we're lost.

Let's describe morality as the study of and application of what's good and bad for us; and let's further describe moral or good acts as acts accountable for producing good for ourselves and others, and immoral or evil acts as those knowingly and systematically designed to hurt, harm or destroy good for ourselves or others (and typically evading accountability for doing so.)

Can we ascertain these distinctions objectively and independently, using medicine, psychological studies and sociological studies?

Of course we can.

But can we know absolutely all the impacts of our actions without prolonged inquiry and investigation?

Of course we can't.

And will there be many gray areas and trade-offs, requiring ethical reflection to resolve?

Of course.

So isn't morality objective, but emergent? And doesn't it simply need compassionate, objective inquiry?

And isn't God simply an appeal to theological authority -- an authority founded on ignorance, deceit and evasion?

And hasn't theology been wrong about everything that we need to inform a serious and informed moral discussion: physics, geology, history, medicine, biology, climatology and the environment, psychology, sociology? And hasn't it always avoided accountability for its errors, while claiming authority with no evidence at all of its correctness?

So isn't it true that not only is morality objective and emergent, but that theology has no place claiming authority in any serious moral conversation?

I hope that may help. :)

It does, actually. Looking back I realize I got completely got caught up in his definition of "objective" morality. You're right that they often try to conflate it with absolute morality. There are so many subtly different moral positions (nihilism, relativism, absolutism, consequentialism, etc.) that my mistake was not asking him to define his terms sooner, and more accurately. Which is kinda sad to admit because that's usually one of the first things I do in any debate or discussion. It saves a lot of potential confusion.

I certainly reject "objective" morality as he defined it (that is, determined by God), but there are of course empirically discernible objective standards by which we can build a moral system upon. Thanks. A lot of this is similar to the lengthy post I wrote to him, but you put it here very concisely. I appreciate that.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 7:23:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 6:52:33 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:39:31 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:55:05 PM, Cryo wrote:
Him:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

A lot of theists [...] want the only morality to be that of theological tradition, and chaos to ensue without those unquestioned traditions. If we follow them down that rabbit-hole we're lost.

I certainly reject "objective" morality as he defined it (that is, determined by God), but there are of course empirically discernible objective standards by which we can build a moral system upon. Thanks. A lot of this is similar to the lengthy post I wrote to him, but you put it here very concisely. I appreciate that.

I'm glad it has helped, Cryo.

Another dimension is that while morality is objective (i.e. we can discover what is good and better, or bad and worse), the moral actions available to us are situational, in that they depend on the circumstance and the resources we have at the time. For example, when someone is gravely sick and helpless, it's generally better to call a doctor than treat that person ourselves. but when someone is sick, helpless and isolated, sometimes all they have is our limited knowledge and expertise.

This is important, because while ethics (principles regarding what we owe one another) are not normally held to be situational, and moral ideals aren't either, moral choices are informed by context. Thus, absolute rules of "dos" and "don'ts" -- the sort often prescribed by tradition -- are unethical, because they limit or prohibit the use of critical thought.

Thus, I hold that commandments like "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not covet" are unethical. The first because there are circumstances where killing might be morally defensible, while not killing might be morally indefensible, even if killing is never morally ideal.

The second, because psychologically we know that, for example, a starving man cannot control whether or not he craves food -- and craving the food others have (perhaps in abundance) is neither avoidable nor immoral. It's what we do about that which defines our moral and ethical sensibilities.

But worse than that, if someone in authority (say a clergyman, or cult-leader) knowingly gave followers absolute and inviolate rules they can't possibly live by, that's not only unethical but also immoral, since it harms dignity, and places others at risk.

There's evidence that the clergy of some faiths have exploited the faithful in this way for centuries, for influence and financial gain. So while ethical principles (like "Love thy neighbour") are harmless and can be helpful, absolute commandments can be unethical, and even immoral.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 7:30:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think it's reasonable to regard raping and murdering infants as "subjective" or "amoral". The only reasonable conclusion is that it's objectively immoral. He's appealing to your intuitive moral awareness when asking those questions. Our moral awareness is *rational* (based on reason and innate knowledge). Any rational human being (nearly everyone) will regard those acts as immoral.

So essentially, the only "proof" he needs is to make the assumption he's arguing with a rational minded person.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 7:57:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 7:30:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I don't think it's reasonable to regard raping and murdering infants as "subjective" or "amoral". The only reasonable conclusion is that it's objectively immoral. He's appealing to your intuitive moral awareness when asking those questions. Our moral awareness is *rational* (based on reason and innate knowledge). Any rational human being (nearly everyone) will regard those acts as immoral.

So essentially, the only "proof" he needs is to make the assumption he's arguing with a rational minded person.

I would consider myself a rationally minded person. The problem is the topic wasn't whether or not I thought it was immoral (which I do, of course) but whether or not the statement: "It is immoral to rape and murder infants" is objective or subjective.

I can say, objectively, that rape harms infants and murdering them is detrimental to societal well-being. Any rational person can see this, yes. But when I say that it's immoral, I go from reporting facts to making a moral judgment. Any moral judgment is going to be dependant on the mind of the person making the judgment, which makes it subjective.

I asked him to demonstrate how what I considered a subjective claim, was actually an appeal to an absolute moral standard, which he could not do.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 8:30:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 7:57:38 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:30:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I don't think it's reasonable to regard raping and murdering infants as "subjective" or "amoral". The only reasonable conclusion is that it's objectively immoral. He's appealing to your intuitive moral awareness when asking those questions. Our moral awareness is *rational* (based on reason and innate knowledge). Any rational human being (nearly everyone) will regard those acts as immoral.

So essentially, the only "proof" he needs is to make the assumption he's arguing with a rational minded person.

I would consider myself a rationally minded person. The problem is the topic wasn't whether or not I thought it was immoral (which I do, of course) but whether or not the statement: "It is immoral to rape and murder infants" is objective or subjective.

I can say, objectively, that rape harms infants and murdering them is detrimental to societal well-being. Any rational person can see this, yes. But when I say that it's immoral, I go from reporting facts to making a moral judgment. Any moral judgment is going to be dependant on the mind of the person making the judgment, which makes it subjective.

I asked him to demonstrate how what I considered a subjective claim, was actually an appeal to an absolute moral standard, which he could not do.

At 7/1/2015 7:57:38 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:30:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I don't think it's reasonable to regard raping and murdering infants as "subjective" or "amoral". The only reasonable conclusion is that it's objectively immoral. He's appealing to your intuitive moral awareness when asking those questions. Our moral awareness is *rational* (based on reason and innate knowledge). Any rational human being (nearly everyone) will regard those acts as immoral.

So essentially, the only "proof" he needs is to make the assumption he's arguing with a rational minded person.

I would consider myself a rationally minded person. The problem is the topic wasn't whether or not I thought it was immoral (which I do, of course) but whether or not the statement: "It is immoral to rape and murder infants" is objective or subjective.

It isn't so much what your opinion is about it, but whether or not you realize that it's true. We can have opinions about things that we know are contrary to the truth. Arriving at the conclusion "raping and murdering infants is subjectively immoral" is asinine. The only way that people arrive at such conclusions are during discussions - such as these - when one party is trying to repackage the evidence to match their worldview. It has no real world practicality, no truth, and stands in diametric contrast to how societies would behave if such a thing were "subjective". Preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla is subjective. Raping or murdering infants? Not so much.

I can say, objectively, that rape harms infants and murdering them is detrimental to societal well-being. Any rational person can see this, yes. But when I say that it's immoral, I go from reporting facts to making a moral judgment. Any moral judgment is going to be dependant on the mind of the person making the judgment, which makes it subjective.

It takes a mind to *recognize* a moral judgement just as it takes a mind to recognize logical absolutes or mathematical entities. We have no reason to assert that moral judgements are the product of human minds just as we have none asserting that the laws of logic or mathematics is the product of the human mind.

I asked him to demonstrate how what I considered a subjective claim, was actually an appeal to an absolute moral standard, which he could not do.

Well first, any rational person will attest that it is indeed wrong. It's not just groundless like something subjective or amoral would be. It has a definitive truth component. The only reasonable conclusion is that it's an objective moral standard.

Secondly, empirically, there hasn't been ONE society in the history of mankind that tolerated such behavior. If it were truly subjective or amoral, it would be absurd to observe such a pattern in the data.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 10:29:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 8:30:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:57:38 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:30:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I don't think it's reasonable to regard raping and murdering infants as "subjective" or "amoral". The only reasonable conclusion is that it's objectively immoral. He's appealing to your intuitive moral awareness when asking those questions. Our moral awareness is *rational* (based on reason and innate knowledge). Any rational human being (nearly everyone) will regard those acts as immoral.

So essentially, the only "proof" he needs is to make the assumption he's arguing with a rational minded person.

I would consider myself a rationally minded person. The problem is the topic wasn't whether or not I thought it was immoral (which I do, of course) but whether or not the statement: "It is immoral to rape and murder infants" is objective or subjective.

I can say, objectively, that rape harms infants and murdering them is detrimental to societal well-being. Any rational person can see this, yes. But when I say that it's immoral, I go from reporting facts to making a moral judgment. Any moral judgment is going to be dependant on the mind of the person making the judgment, which makes it subjective.

I asked him to demonstrate how what I considered a subjective claim, was actually an appeal to an absolute moral standard, which he could not do.

At 7/1/2015 7:57:38 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:30:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I don't think it's reasonable to regard raping and murdering infants as "subjective" or "amoral". The only reasonable conclusion is that it's objectively immoral. He's appealing to your intuitive moral awareness when asking those questions. Our moral awareness is *rational* (based on reason and innate knowledge). Any rational human being (nearly everyone) will regard those acts as immoral.

So essentially, the only "proof" he needs is to make the assumption he's arguing with a rational minded person.

I would consider myself a rationally minded person. The problem is the topic wasn't whether or not I thought it was immoral (which I do, of course) but whether or not the statement: "It is immoral to rape and murder infants" is objective or subjective.

It isn't so much what your opinion is about it, but whether or not you realize that it's true. We can have opinions about things that we know are contrary to the truth. Arriving at the conclusion "raping and murdering infants is subjectively immoral" is asinine. The only way that people arrive at such conclusions are during discussions - such as these - when one party is trying to repackage the evidence to match their worldview. It has no real world practicality, no truth, and stands in diametric contrast to how societies would behave if such a thing were "subjective". Preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla is subjective. Raping or murdering infants? Not so much.

What "truth" am I not seeing?

I can say, objectively, that rape harms infants and murdering them is detrimental to societal well-being. Any rational person can see this, yes. But when I say that it's immoral, I go from reporting facts to making a moral judgment. Any moral judgment is going to be dependant on the mind of the person making the judgment, which makes it subjective.

It takes a mind to *recognize* a moral judgement just as it takes a mind to recognize logical absolutes or mathematical entities. We have no reason to assert that moral judgements are the product of human minds just as we have none asserting that the laws of logic or mathematics is the product of the human mind.

What? We have every reason to assert that moral judgments are the products of human minds. What evidence is there to the contrary? Whose moral judgment are we "recognizing" if we're not coming up with them on our own?

I asked him to demonstrate how what I considered a subjective claim, was actually an appeal to an absolute moral standard, which he could not do.

Well first, any rational person will attest that it is indeed wrong. It's not just groundless like something subjective or amoral would be. It has a definitive truth component. The only reasonable conclusion is that it's an objective moral standard.

Secondly, empirically, there hasn't been ONE society in the history of mankind that tolerated such behavior. If it were truly subjective or amoral, it would be absurd to observe such a pattern in the data.

Just because it's grounded in something objective doesn't mean the moral judgment is objective as well. Pointing out that harming babies is bad for society doesn't necessarily mean one ought not to do it. To say one ought not to do it, one must first have a preference for a particular outcome over another. It is this preference that is subjective, simply because it depends on the person. It is dependant on the invidividual's mind. When disagreements arise, there are no objective moral standards which we can consult with. We have no choice but to try and figure out for ourselves what is best. This is the way it's always been and how it always will be. There are no objective standards for how things ought to be.

Of course there's never been a society that tolerated such behavior towards infants because any society or species that did would not last very long. The fact that our species, and all the different cultures that have existed throughout its history, have all demonstrated similar behavior, doesn't mean that it's objectively right or good. That is not evidence of an objective moral standard that we all recognized.

The question I'm asking is, is there an objective, absolute moral standard that was set by a higher power that we are bound to, or innately aware of (which seems to be where you're heading)? Or are our morals simply our own mental constructs, the result of our evolution and environment, guided by our own desires?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 10:29:39 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/1/2015 8:30:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:57:38 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:30:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I don't think it's reasonable to regard raping and murdering infants as "subjective" or "amoral". The only reasonable conclusion is that it's objectively immoral. He's appealing to your intuitive moral awareness when asking those questions. Our moral awareness is *rational* (based on reason and innate knowledge). Any rational human being (nearly everyone) will regard those acts as immoral.

So essentially, the only "proof" he needs is to make the assumption he's arguing with a rational minded person.

I would consider myself a rationally minded person. The problem is the topic wasn't whether or not I thought it was immoral (which I do, of course) but whether or not the statement: "It is immoral to rape and murder infants" is objective or subjective.

I can say, objectively, that rape harms infants and murdering them is detrimental to societal well-being. Any rational person can see this, yes. But when I say that it's immoral, I go from reporting facts to making a moral judgment. Any moral judgment is going to be dependant on the mind of the person making the judgment, which makes it subjective.

I asked him to demonstrate how what I considered a subjective claim, was actually an appeal to an absolute moral standard, which he could not do.

At 7/1/2015 7:57:38 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:30:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I don't think it's reasonable to regard raping and murdering infants as "subjective" or "amoral". The only reasonable conclusion is that it's objectively immoral. He's appealing to your intuitive moral awareness when asking those questions. Our moral awareness is *rational* (based on reason and innate knowledge). Any rational human being (nearly everyone) will regard those acts as immoral.

So essentially, the only "proof" he needs is to make the assumption he's arguing with a rational minded person.

I would consider myself a rationally minded person. The problem is the topic wasn't whether or not I thought it was immoral (which I do, of course) but whether or not the statement: "It is immoral to rape and murder infants" is objective or subjective.

It isn't so much what your opinion is about it, but whether or not you realize that it's true. We can have opinions about things that we know are contrary to the truth. Arriving at the conclusion "raping and murdering infants is subjectively immoral" is asinine. The only way that people arrive at such conclusions are during discussions - such as these - when one party is trying to repackage the evidence to match their worldview. It has no real world practicality, no truth, and stands in diametric contrast to how societies would behave if such a thing were "subjective". Preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla is subjective. Raping or murdering infants? Not so much.

What "truth" am I not seeing?

"punishing an innocent person is wrong"
"Raping an infant is wrong"
"Torturing some for fun is morally wrong"
"Child abuse is morally wrong"
"Cruelty is morally wrong"

If morality is subjective, torturing a child could be considered morally good. Loving them could be morally reprehensible. Do you see how nonsensical that is? Or seeing "hatred" as a morally good disposition and "love" as a morally bad disposition.


I can say, objectively, that rape harms infants and murdering them is detrimental to societal well-being. Any rational person can see this, yes. But when I say that it's immoral, I go from reporting facts to making a moral judgment. Any moral judgment is going to be dependant on the mind of the person making the judgment, which makes it subjective.

It takes a mind to *recognize* a moral judgement just as it takes a mind to recognize logical absolutes or mathematical entities. We have no reason to assert that moral judgements are the product of human minds just as we have none asserting that the laws of logic or mathematics is the product of the human mind.

What? We have every reason to assert that moral judgments are the products of human minds. What evidence is there to the contrary? Whose moral judgment are we "recognizing" if we're not coming up with them on our own?

So if a group of people decided that child rape was good, it would be good? If a group of people decided that torture was good, it would be good? If they decide that compassion is morally reprehensible and hatred is morally good it would be so? Of course not. Moral judgements aren't the product of the human mind. Why would we ever even consider ourselves to be imperfect if we can just deem whatever we do is moral?

I asked him to demonstrate how what I considered a subjective claim, was actually an appeal to an absolute moral standard, which he could not do.

Well first, any rational person will attest that it is indeed wrong. It's not just groundless like something subjective or amoral would be. It has a definitive truth component. The only reasonable conclusion is that it's an objective moral standard.

Secondly, empirically, there hasn't been ONE society in the history of mankind that tolerated such behavior. If it were truly subjective or amoral, it would be absurd to observe such a pattern in the data.

Just because it's grounded in something objective doesn't mean the moral judgment is objective as well. Pointing out that harming babies is bad for society doesn't necessarily mean one ought not to do it. To say one ought not to do it, one must first have a preference for a particular outcome over another. It is this preference that is subjective, simply because it depends on the person. It is dependant on the invidividual's mind. When disagreements arise, there are no objective moral standards which we can consult with.

So if one says "we should torture the baby" and the other says "no we shouldn't" we should call that a stalemate? Whatever we ought to do in this situation can't be determined in this instance?

We have no choice but to try and figure out for ourselves what is best. This is the way it's always been and how it always will be. There are no objective standards for how things ought to be.

So all justice systems amongst all societies always have been and always will be based on an utterly arbitrary set of rules? All justice systems punish theft, rape, and murder with increasing respective severity coincidentally and subjectively?

Of course there's never been a society that tolerated such behavior towards infants because any society or species that did would not last very long. The fact that our species, and all the different cultures that have existed throughout its history, have all demonstrated similar behavior, doesn't mean that it's objectively right or good. That is not evidence of an objective moral standard that we all recognized.

Why not? Even if it's instinctual its still objective. Also, evolution doesn't occur to propagate our species. It's an umbodied process that is devoid and incapable of having an objective.

The question I'm asking is, is there an objective, absolute moral standard that was set by a higher power that we are bound to, or innately aware of (which seems to be where you're heading)? Or are our morals simply our own mental constructs, the result of our evolution and environment, guided by our own desires?

Innate awareness of right and wrong. From there we have a degree of subjectivity amongst what is considered right and wrong. Moral realism is favored 2:1 amongst a sample of 1000 philosophers, 75% of whom identified as atheists.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 2:36:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It isn't so much what your opinion is about it, but whether or not you realize that it's true.
What "truth" am I not seeing?

"punishing an innocent person is wrong"
"Raping an infant is wrong"
"Torturing some for fun is morally wrong"
"Child abuse is morally wrong"
"Cruelty is morally wrong"

I agree with these statements, but how do we determine that they are statements of truth and not opinion? The problem is even if we agree to hold certain things as objective standards, it's still just an agreement we made, another opinion we happen to share, and whatever decisions we make would still be dependant on our own opinions. Even if our motivations are rooted in our nature, that doesn't make our decisions moral truths. That just means our thoughts happen to be in line with our nature.

If morality is subjective, torturing a child could be considered morally good. Loving them could be morally reprehensible. Do you see how nonsensical that is? Or seeing "hatred" as a morally good disposition and "love" as a morally bad disposition.

Whether morality is objective or subjective, a guy could always consider torturing a child to be a good thing, because objective morality wouldn't negate this man's ability to think for himself (like you said, you could always have an opinion about something you're objectively wrong about), nor would it cure him of any mental issues he likely has. Even if there was an objective standard of moral good, it wouldn't make a difference to him, and it wouldn't change anything about the way we do things. We'd still have discussions about what we personally think is right or wrong, make our arguments, appeal to whatever standard we think should be followed, then collectively make a decision about how to deal with him.

What? We have every reason to assert that moral judgments are the products of human minds. What evidence is there to the contrary? Whose moral judgment are we "recognizing" if we're not coming up with them on our own?

So if a group of people decided that child rape was good, it would be good? If a group of people decided that torture was good, it would be good? If they decide that compassion is morally reprehensible and hatred is morally good it would be so? Of course not. Moral judgements aren't the product of the human mind. Why would we ever even consider ourselves to be imperfect if we can just deem whatever we do is moral?

Whether it was good or bad would depend on whatever standards of right and wrong the obserer held, and there is no true moral standard. There are many beliefs that are shared universally, but that doesn't make them true or others false, it just means we all happen to agree about something.

You point out again that moral judgments are not products of the mind. So where exactly do they come from?

Also, there's nothing stopping anyone from claiming to be morally perfect or that everything they do is morally good. The only reason it would ever be a problem was if they felt they were morally right to hurt other people. Then the rest of us would deal with them because we don't like being hurt. Is it objectively wrong to hurt innocent people? No. We just happen to believe that it's wrong, and that's good enough.

Just because it's grounded in something objective doesn't mean the moral judgment is objective as well. Pointing out that harming babies is bad for society doesn't necessarily mean one ought not to do it. To say one ought not to do it, one must first have a preference for a particular outcome over another. It is this preference that is subjective, simply because it depends on the person. It is dependant on the invidividual's mind. When disagreements arise, there are no objective moral standards which we can consult with.

So if one says "we should torture the baby" and the other says "no we shouldn't" we should call that a stalemate? Whatever we ought to do in this situation can't be determined in this instance?

In the grand scheme of things, yeah, I see it as a stalemate, in the sense that neither one of us has any objective standard to determine what ought to be done. It's not like a disagreement about a math problem, where we could just do the calculations to see which one of us was correct.

But realistically, it's not a stalemate, because we both know in that situation that people would overwhelmingly agree with "no we shouldn't". I can say to the person who wants to torture the baby that I'm not going to let him because it's wrong. If he asks me why it's wrong, I have no logical proof or objective standard to hold him too. I have only my beliefs. I can only voice my side of the argument. Either he'll agree with me and be convinced to join my position, or he won't. If he doesn't, then he'll be dealt with by society.

We have no choice but to try and figure out for ourselves what is best. This is the way it's always been and how it always will be. There are no objective standards for how things ought to be.

So all justice systems amongst all societies always have been and always will be based on an utterly arbitrary set of rules? All justice systems punish theft, rape, and murder with increasing respective severity coincidentally and subjectively?

Subjectively? Yes. There may be consensus that murder is worse than theft, but within different systems the punishments vary, and some crimes aren't punished at all depending on the context.
Coincidentally? No. It's not a random assortment of decisions that happen to coincide. We have certain innate desires that we share, and those desires shape our beliefs.

Of course there's never been a society that tolerated such behavior towards infants because any society or species that did would not last very long. The fact that our species, and all the different cultures that have existed throughout its history, have all demonstrated similar behavior, doesn't mean that it's objectively right or good. That is not evidence of an objective moral standard that we all recognized.

Why not? Even if it's instinctual its still objective. Also, evolution doesn't occur to propagate our species. It's an umbodied process that is devoid and incapable of having an objective.

What it's evidence of is that we all happen to agree on something, and nothing more. The instinct may be based on something objective, and the decision may also be informed by objective truths, but if the decision is made in the mind is it not ultimately a subjective viewpoint? I know you don't think we're capable of making moral judgments, but I've already asked for a clarification to this earlier in the post.

The question I'm asking is, is there an objective, absolute moral standard that was set by a higher power that we are bound to, or innately aware of (which seems to be where you're heading)? Or are our morals simply our own mental constructs, the result of our evolution and environment, guided by our own desires?

Innate awareness of right and wrong. From there we have a degree of subjectivity amongst what is considered right and wrong. Moral realism is favored 2:1 amongst a sample of 1000 philosophers, 75% of whom identified as atheists.

Colloquially speaking we have an "innate awareness of right and wrong", sure, but right and wrong are just concepts. What we have is an innate awareness of what we prefer, and then we label what we prefer as "right" and what we don't as "wrong". The reason humanity happens to agree on so many things, generally speaking, is because we are all guided by the same desires. To point out that we agree on general propositions of right and wrong is not evidence of an objective morality. All its evidence of is that we agree with each other.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 3:51:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Colloquially speaking we have an "innate awareness of right and wrong", sure, but right and wrong are just concepts. What we have is an innate awareness of what we prefer, and then we label what we prefer as "right" and what we don't as "wrong". The reason humanity happens to agree on so many things, generally speaking, is because we are all guided by the same desires. To point out that we agree on general propositions of right and wrong is not evidence of an objective morality. All its evidence of is that we agree with each other.

Undefined Gods have this nasty habit of needing to have every conceivable attribute that is good, or what works in humanity awarded to Them as part of Their creation, and "founded" for humanity to discover.

"Good"? God's intent, of course, it was His creation!
"Bad"? Oh no, heavens no, that was not Him but us!

Common sense has to take a back door to being created in order to exist, as though it was fire that Prometheus had to deliver or the like. Humanity is ultimately and utterly helpless in their ability to help themselves according to religion. Depending on the nature of the theist, any benefit or positive societal construct that humanity creates gets quickly usurped as His domain that we discovered in His creation.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 4:26:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

What "truth" am I not seeing?

"punishing an innocent person is wrong"
"Raping an infant is wrong"
"Torturing some for fun is morally wrong"
"Child abuse is morally wrong"
"Cruelty is morally wrong"

What is wrong about cruelty?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 8:49:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 4:26:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

What "truth" am I not seeing?

"punishing an innocent person is wrong"
"Raping an infant is wrong"
"Torturing some for fun is morally wrong"
"Child abuse is morally wrong"
"Cruelty is morally wrong"

What is wrong about cruelty?

Seriously?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 9:08:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 8:49:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:26:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

What "truth" am I not seeing?

"punishing an innocent person is wrong"
"Raping an infant is wrong"
"Torturing some for fun is morally wrong"
"Child abuse is morally wrong"
"Cruelty is morally wrong"

What is wrong about cruelty?

Seriously?
Yes, seriously.
I don't approve of cruelty of any kind, but what makes it objectively morally bad?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 9:16:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 8:49:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:26:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

What "truth" am I not seeing?

"punishing an innocent person is wrong"
"Raping an infant is wrong"
"Torturing some for fun is morally wrong"
"Child abuse is morally wrong"
"Cruelty is morally wrong"

What is wrong about cruelty?

Seriously?

Interesting that you choose to repeatedly avoid answering a question which would vindicate your entire meta ethical position. Hint: You cannot do it soundly
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 9:22:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 2:36:19 AM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I agree with these statements, but how do we determine that they are statements of truth and not opinion? The problem is even if we agree to hold certain things as objective standards, it's still just an agreement we made, another opinion we happen to share, and whatever decisions we make would still be dependant on our own opinions. Even if our motivations are rooted in our nature, that doesn't make our decisions moral truths. That just means our thoughts happen to be in line with our nature.

It should be self-evident, just as it was self-evident that all men are created equal. It's not true because we agree on it. We agree on it because it's true. If our motivations are rooted in our nature it isn't subjective. The truth of the matter is no longer based on our thoughts and opinions

If morality is subjective, torturing a child could be considered morally good. Loving them could be morally reprehensible. Do you see how nonsensical that is? Or seeing "hatred" as a morally good disposition and "love" as a morally bad disposition.

Whether morality is objective or subjective, a guy could always consider torturing a child to be a good thing, because objective morality wouldn't negate this man's ability to think for himself (like you said, you could always have an opinion about something you're objectively wrong about), nor would it cure him of any mental issues he likely has.
Even if there was an objective standard of moral good, it wouldn't make a difference to him, and it wouldn't change anything about the way we do things. We'd still have discussions about what we personally think is right or wrong, make our arguments, appeal to whatever standard we think should be followed, then collectively make a decision about how to deal with him.

Okay, but if he thought it was good, would it be good?


So if a group of people decided that child rape was good, it would be good? If a group of people decided that torture was good, it would be good? If they decide that compassion is morally reprehensible and hatred is morally good it would be so? Of course not. Moral judgements aren't the product of the human mind. Why would we ever even consider ourselves to be imperfect if we can just deem whatever we do is moral?

Whether it was good or bad would depend on whatever standards of right and wrong the obserer held, and there is no true moral standard. There are many beliefs that are shared universally, but that doesn't make them true or others false, it just means we all happen to agree about something.

So if a child rapist thought raping a child wasn't wrong, it wouldn't be?

You point out again that moral judgments are not products of the mind. So where exactly do they come from?

The same place mathematics and logical absolutes come from.

Also, there's nothing stopping anyone from claiming to be morally perfect or that everything they do is morally good. The only reason it would ever be a problem was if they felt they were morally right to hurt other people. Then the rest of us would deal with them because we don't like being hurt. Is it objectively wrong to hurt innocent people? No. We just happen to believe that it's wrong, and that's good enough.

then why do the vast majority of us consider ourselves to have done wrong when its better to have not admitted wrongdoing?


So if one says "we should torture the baby" and the other says "no we shouldn't" we should call that a stalemate? Whatever we ought to do in this situation can't be determined in this instance?

In the grand scheme of things, yeah, I see it as a stalemate, in the sense that neither one of us has any objective standard to determine what ought to be done. It's not like a disagreement about a math problem, where we could just do the calculations to see which one of us was correct.

What on earth would you lead you to that conclusion taking into consideration that people are rational and that literally no society on earth thinks that way? It's not reasonably subjective or amoral.

But realistically, it's not a stalemate, because we both know in that situation that people would overwhelmingly agree with "no we shouldn't". I can say to the person who wants to torture the baby that I'm not going to let him because it's wrong. If he asks me why it's wrong, I have no logical proof or objective standard to hold him too. I have only my beliefs. I can only voice my side of the argument. Either he'll agree with me and be convinced to join my position, or he won't. If he doesn't, then he'll be dealt with by society.

Why do you think it's wrong? Do you consider it to be analogous to your preference for ice cream flavors?


So all justice systems amongst all societies always have been and always will be based on an utterly arbitrary set of rules? All justice systems punish theft, rape, and murder with increasing respective severity coincidentally and subjectively?

Subjectively? Yes. There may be consensus that murder is worse than theft, but within different systems the punishments vary, and some crimes aren't punished at all depending on the context.

That's a ridiculous conclusion to arrive at. Every sample in the data contradicts the side you're taking - that it's subjective.

Coincidentally? No. It's not a random assortment of decisions that happen to coincide. We have certain innate desires that we share, and those desires shape our beliefs.

Innate desires? Can't you see that this is the foundation of an objective moral framework?


Why not? Even if it's instinctual its still objective. Also, evolution doesn't occur to propagate our species. It's an umbodied process that is devoid and incapable of having an objective.

What it's evidence of is that we all happen to agree on something, and nothing more. The instinct may be based on something objective, and the decision may also be informed by objective truths, but if the decision is made in the mind is it not ultimately a subjective viewpoint? I know you don't think we're capable of making moral judgments, but I've already asked for a clarification to this earlier in the post.

If the instinct is objective and the decision is informed by objective truths, how on earth is it still "subjective"? We're capable of making moral judgements to a degree. "Gay marriage is wrong" is a moral judgement made on a spectrum. Once we regress something far back enough, like "raping an infant is wrong" the truth of the proposition is overwhelming. We're not capable of making that proposition moral.

The question I'm asking is, is there an objective, absolute moral standard that was set by a higher power that we are bound to, or innately aware of (which seems to be where you're heading)? Or are our morals simply our own mental constructs, the result of our evolution and environment, guided by our own desires?

Innate awareness of right and wrong. From there we have a degree of subjectivity amongst what is considered right and wrong. Moral realism is favored 2:1 amongst a sample of 1000 philosophers, 75% of whom identified as atheists.

Colloquially speaking we have an "innate awareness of right and wrong", sure, but right and wrong are just concepts. What we have is an innate awareness of what we prefer, and then we label what we prefer as "right" and what we don't as "wrong". The reason humanity happens to agree on so many things, generally speaking, is because we are all guided by the same desires. To point out that we agree on general propositions of right and wrong is not evidence of an objective morality. All its evidence of is that we agree with each other.

Our agreement on the matter isn't arbitrary as you've pointed out. It isn't right or wrong because we've agreed. It's right or wrong and we agree.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 9:44:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Innate awareness of right and wrong. From there we have a degree of subjectivity amongst what is considered right and wrong. Moral realism is favored 2:1 amongst a sample of 1000 philosophers,
Atheism is favored 8.5:10. Rekt.
Have you looked at the arguments for the seperate versions of contemporary realism?
McDowel-, Railton-, Cornwell-realism to give you some names. "Piss-poor" is my analysis of the matter.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 9:59:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 9:08:08 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 8:49:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:26:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

What "truth" am I not seeing?

"punishing an innocent person is wrong"
"Raping an infant is wrong"
"Torturing some for fun is morally wrong"
"Child abuse is morally wrong"
"Cruelty is morally wrong"

What is wrong about cruelty?

Seriously?
Yes, seriously.
I don't approve of cruelty of any kind, but what makes it objectively morally bad?

Well first, do you find anything objectively wrong with any of the other statements listed?

It's objectively morally bad because is could never be morally good or amoral. It's always irrational otherwise. Rationality is the objective foundation of it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 10:01:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 9:44:40 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Innate awareness of right and wrong. From there we have a degree of subjectivity amongst what is considered right and wrong. Moral realism is favored 2:1 amongst a sample of 1000 philosophers,
Atheism is favored 8.5:10. Rekt.

Here's the kicker: if moral realism is affirmed, God exists.

Have you looked at the arguments for the seperate versions of contemporary realism?
McDowel-, Railton-, Cornwell-realism to give you some names. "Piss-poor" is my analysis of the matter.

No I haven't. Logically, I don't see how it's possible to argue that moral realism is true if God doesn't exist.
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 10:17:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
By objectively immoral do you mean universally immoral?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 10:29:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 10:17:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
By objectively immoral do you mean universally immoral?

It depends on what context you're using "universally" in. Gravity is universal. It's an objective force.

If you mean universally agreed upon, no, that wouldn't make it objective. It is, however, empirical evidence of objective morality.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 11:03:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 9:59:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 9:08:08 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 8:49:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:26:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

What "truth" am I not seeing?

"punishing an innocent person is wrong"
"Raping an infant is wrong"
"Torturing some for fun is morally wrong"
"Child abuse is morally wrong"
"Cruelty is morally wrong"

What is wrong about cruelty?

Seriously?
Yes, seriously.
I don't approve of cruelty of any kind, but what makes it objectively morally bad?

Well first, do you find anything objectively wrong with any of the other statements listed?
No.

It's objectively morally bad because is could never be morally good or amoral. It's always irrational otherwise. Rationality is the objective foundation of it.

Why would it be irrational of someone to perform morally bad acts if he really desires the outcome and is in no danger of being held accountable for it?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 11:10:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 11:03:19 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 9:59:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 9:08:08 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 8:49:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:26:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

What "truth" am I not seeing?

"punishing an innocent person is wrong"
"Raping an infant is wrong"
"Torturing some for fun is morally wrong"
"Child abuse is morally wrong"
"Cruelty is morally wrong"

What is wrong about cruelty?

Seriously?
Yes, seriously.
I don't approve of cruelty of any kind, but what makes it objectively morally bad?

Well first, do you find anything objectively wrong with any of the other statements listed?
No.

It's objectively morally bad because is could never be morally good or amoral. It's always irrational otherwise. Rationality is the objective foundation of it.

Why would it be irrational of someone to perform morally bad acts if he really desires the outcome and is in no danger of being held accountable for it?

Isn't that a candid admission to say "perform morally bad acts"?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 11:17:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 10:01:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 9:44:40 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Innate awareness of right and wrong. From there we have a degree of subjectivity amongst what is considered right and wrong. Moral realism is favored 2:1 amongst a sample of 1000 philosophers,
Atheism is favored 8.5:10. Rekt.

Here's the kicker: if moral realism is affirmed, God exists.
Not at all lol. The realist I just listed are all secular. The line of reasoning behind the MOA is that all non-theistic realist accounts fail, yet there is objective badness, therefore God exists.

Have you looked at the arguments for the seperate versions of contemporary realism?
McDowel-, Railton-, Cornwell-realism to give you some names. "Piss-poor" is my analysis of the matter.

No I haven't. Logically, I don't see how it's possible to argue that moral realism is true if God doesn't exist.
Yet all those atheistic philosophers counted as moral realists believe it is. 85% atheists, 66% m. realists. Do the math.
Say the whole other 15% are theists. They are inevitably realists, too, leaving 51%. Now we have to adjust the total number to 85 and we get roughly 43% atheistic realists.
Only 43% of atheistic philosophers deny the first premise, therefore you 2:1 ratio is not accurate in a relevant way. But I don't think all of them are really interested in metaethics and because of that voted realist. Lessening the relevant number even further. You see, I somewhat belong to the majority, so your appeal to authority falls flat on it's face.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 11:19:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 11:10:57 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 11:03:19 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 9:59:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 9:08:08 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 8:49:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:26:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

What "truth" am I not seeing?

"punishing an innocent person is wrong"
"Raping an infant is wrong"
"Torturing some for fun is morally wrong"
"Child abuse is morally wrong"
"Cruelty is morally wrong"

What is wrong about cruelty?

Seriously?
Yes, seriously.
I don't approve of cruelty of any kind, but what makes it objectively morally bad?

Well first, do you find anything objectively wrong with any of the other statements listed?
No.

It's objectively morally bad because is could never be morally good or amoral. It's always irrational otherwise. Rationality is the objective foundation of it.

Why would it be irrational of someone to perform morally bad acts if he really desires the outcome and is in no danger of being held accountable for it?

Isn't that a candid admission to say "perform morally bad acts"?

You said: "It's objectively morally bad because is could never be morally good or amoral." So far so circular, but then you continued with: "It's always irrational otherwise. Rationality is the objective foundation of it."
Now I am asking me to show what there is irrational about my outlined scenario.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 11:48:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 10:29:03 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 10:17:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
By objectively immoral do you mean universally immoral?

It depends on what context you're using "universally" in. Gravity is universal. It's an objective force.

If you mean universally agreed upon, no, that wouldn't make it objective. It is, however, empirical evidence of objective morality.
Duhh
Universally accepted wouldn't mean objective it would just be empirical evidence of objective..
I don't know how stupid is spelled in your country, but you're IT.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 11:49:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 11:17:11 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 10:01:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/2/2015 9:44:40 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/2/2015 12:17:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Innate awareness of right and wrong. From there we have a degree of subjectivity amongst what is considered right and wrong. Moral realism is favored 2:1 amongst a sample of 1000 philosophers,
Atheism is favored 8.5:10. Rekt.

Here's the kicker: if moral realism is affirmed, God exists.
Not at all lol. The realist I just listed are all secular. The line of reasoning behind the MOA is that all non-theistic realist accounts fail, yet there is objective badness, therefore God exists.

Well there just can't be anything objective and binding if we're inherently purposeless. If we definitely ought or ought not to do something we need have some kind of innate purpose. That's only possible if God exists. I'll take a gander of how they justify moral realism though.

Have you looked at the arguments for the seperate versions of contemporary realism?
McDowel-, Railton-, Cornwell-realism to give you some names. "Piss-poor" is my analysis of the matter.

No I haven't. Logically, I don't see how it's possible to argue that moral realism is true if God doesn't exist.
Yet all those atheistic philosophers counted as moral realists believe it is. 85% atheists, 66% m. realists. Do the math.

They find moral realism to be true, they don't find it necessarily to be compatible with atheism.

Say the whole other 15% are theists.

That other whole would be 25% since 75% identified as atheists, but the number was lower when including categories such as "other"

They are inevitably realists, too, leaving 51%. Now we have to adjust the total number to 85 and we get roughly 43% atheistic realists.
Only 43% of atheistic philosophers deny the first premise, therefore you 2:1 ratio is not accurate in a relevant way. But I don't think all of them are really interested in metaethics and because of that voted realist. Lessening the relevant number even further. You see, I somewhat belong to the majority, so your appeal to authority falls flat on it's face.

I don't trust the math on that one at all.