Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Objective Morality

AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 2:56:13 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?

Some would argue that the general trend of certain crimes being illegal throughout history proves objective morality. However, this is highly debatable.

If anything, I find P2 to be more unsupported. What makes God a better explanation than human psychology?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
missmedic
Posts: 386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 3:25:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?

Reason and reality are absolute, there for they do not contradict, this makes them objective , so to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments.
The initiation of force is the act of one man initiating force against another, as opposed to retaliatory force. Force includes such acts as murder, theft, threats, and fraud. It is acting against another person without their consent.
The initiation of force is never moral. Man's nature is such that he survives by reason. Survival by reason requires the ability to act on your reason. Force destroys that ability. When you use force against someone, you are destroying their ability to survive by destroying their ability to use reason, and their ability to survive will suffer to the extent that force is used.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 3:44:32 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 2:56:13 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?

Some would argue that the general trend of certain crimes being illegal throughout history proves objective morality. However, this is highly debatable.

This is simply wrong. For something to be objective, it must exist as a fact beyond human opinion or even human existence. Since humanity's idea of right and wrong would go down the drain if humans stopped existing, then one can safely conclude that it is not objective.

If anything, I find P2 to be more unsupported. What makes God a better explanation than human psychology?

True, but I would rather discuss P1.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 3:51:57 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 3:25:22 AM, missmedic wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?


Reason and reality are absolute, there for they do not contradict, this makes them objective , so to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments.
The initiation of force is the act of one man initiating force against another, as opposed to retaliatory force. Force includes such acts as murder, theft, threats, and fraud. It is acting against another person without their consent.
The initiation of force is never moral. Man's nature is such that he survives by reason.
Survival by reason requires the ability to act on your reason. Force destroys that ability. When you use force against someone, you are destroying their ability to survive by destroying their ability to use reason, and their ability to survive will suffer to the extent that force is used.

How does using force against someone destroy their ability to reason? I mean, with murder that is obvious, but I don't see how that works for theft, threats and fraud.

Secondly, why is the initiation of force never moral? Everything you say after this point doesn't show that the initiation of force isn't moral, you simply claim why the initiation of force negates a person's ability to use reason, but you don't show why this negation of reasonable action is immoral.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 4:00:23 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 3:44:32 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:56:13 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?

Some would argue that the general trend of certain crimes being illegal throughout history proves objective morality. However, this is highly debatable.

This is simply wrong. For something to be objective, it must exist as a fact beyond human opinion or even human existence. Since humanity's idea of right and wrong would go down the drain if humans stopped existing, then one can safely conclude that it is not objective.

Huh... I've never heard that argument before. A quick search on Google shows that whether or not animals have morals is debatable, so your argument isn't exactly strong at the moment.


If anything, I find P2 to be more unsupported. What makes God a better explanation than human psychology?

True, but I would rather discuss P1.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 4:03:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 3:25:22 AM, missmedic wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?


Reason and reality are absolute, there for they do not contradict, this makes them objective , so to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments.

Reason is not absolute, for if that were the case, we wouldn't need science. Logic and reality often contradict. If something is logically valid, that does not mean it is valid in reality. And reason depends on a brain existing, which agains proves it is not absolute.

The initiation of force is the act of one man initiating force against another, as opposed to retaliatory force. Force includes such acts as murder, theft, threats, and fraud. It is acting against another person without their consent.

Ok.

The initiation of force is never moral. Man's nature is such that he survives by reason. Survival by reason requires the ability to act on your reason. Force destroys that ability. When you use force against someone, you are destroying their ability to survive by destroying their ability to use reason, and their ability to survive will suffer to the extent that force is used.

Man doesn't survive by reason, man survives by a lot of factors. Often forms of reason is instinctive. Besides, your broad term of "force" is broad. I could use your logic to say that gravity is immoral because it is a force that often destroys a persons ability to reason, especially from great heights. This is obviously flawed reasoning.

Also, theft and fraud usually don't end with destroying another persons ability to reason or survive. Often taking someone's TV or lunch money doesn't destroy that persons ability to survive either.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 4:05:32 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 4:00:23 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 3:44:32 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:56:13 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?

Some would argue that the general trend of certain crimes being illegal throughout history proves objective morality. However, this is highly debatable.

This is simply wrong. For something to be objective, it must exist as a fact beyond human opinion or even human existence. Since humanity's idea of right and wrong would go down the drain if humans stopped existing, then one can safely conclude that it is not objective.

Huh... I've never heard that argument before. A quick search on Google shows that whether or not animals have morals is debatable, so your argument isn't exactly strong at the moment.

Well it should remain a fact beyond the brain's existence. That's sort of what I meant to say.

If anything, I find P2 to be more unsupported. What makes God a better explanation than human psychology?

True, but I would rather discuss P1.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 4:13:43 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 4:05:32 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:00:23 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 3:44:32 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:56:13 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?

Some would argue that the general trend of certain crimes being illegal throughout history proves objective morality. However, this is highly debatable.

This is simply wrong. For something to be objective, it must exist as a fact beyond human opinion or even human existence. Since humanity's idea of right and wrong would go down the drain if humans stopped existing, then one can safely conclude that it is not objective.

Huh... I've never heard that argument before. A quick search on Google shows that whether or not animals have morals is debatable, so your argument isn't exactly strong at the moment.

Well it should remain a fact beyond the brain's existence. That's sort of what I meant to say.

Who's to say it isn't? As the old saying goes: "If a tree falls, and nobody hears it, does it still make a sound"? Well, of course it does! You don't need a human to observe the physics, for the physics to occur.

Same could go for morals: If nobody is no longer alive to be killed, is killing still wrong?


If anything, I find P2 to be more unsupported. What makes God a better explanation than human psychology?

True, but I would rather discuss P1.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 4:22:29 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 4:13:43 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:05:32 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:00:23 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 3:44:32 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:56:13 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?

Some would argue that the general trend of certain crimes being illegal throughout history proves objective morality. However, this is highly debatable.

This is simply wrong. For something to be objective, it must exist as a fact beyond human opinion or even human existence. Since humanity's idea of right and wrong would go down the drain if humans stopped existing, then one can safely conclude that it is not objective.

Huh... I've never heard that argument before. A quick search on Google shows that whether or not animals have morals is debatable, so your argument isn't exactly strong at the moment.

Well it should remain a fact beyond the brain's existence. That's sort of what I meant to say.

Who's to say it isn't? As the old saying goes: "If a tree falls, and nobody hears it, does it still make a sound"? Well, of course it does! You don't need a human to observe the physics, for the physics to occur.

That's right, and that's why physics is objective. If morality is objective too, then one could demonstrate that morality still exists even if all life on earth disappeared tomorrow. That's what my point is. Asking someone "is the holocaust bad" (or something similarly immoral) to prove morality is objective is not a valid way to prove its objectivity.

Same could go for morals: If nobody is no longer alive to be killed, is killing still wrong?

It should be if it's objective.


If anything, I find P2 to be more unsupported. What makes God a better explanation than human psychology?

True, but I would rather discuss P1.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 4:49:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 4:22:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:13:43 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:05:32 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:00:23 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 3:44:32 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:56:13 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?

Some would argue that the general trend of certain crimes being illegal throughout history proves objective morality. However, this is highly debatable.

This is simply wrong. For something to be objective, it must exist as a fact beyond human opinion or even human existence. Since humanity's idea of right and wrong would go down the drain if humans stopped existing, then one can safely conclude that it is not objective.

Huh... I've never heard that argument before. A quick search on Google shows that whether or not animals have morals is debatable, so your argument isn't exactly strong at the moment.

Well it should remain a fact beyond the brain's existence. That's sort of what I meant to say.

Who's to say it isn't? As the old saying goes: "If a tree falls, and nobody hears it, does it still make a sound"? Well, of course it does! You don't need a human to observe the physics, for the physics to occur.

That's right, and that's why physics is objective. If morality is objective too, then one could demonstrate that morality still exists even if all life on earth disappeared tomorrow. That's what my point is. Asking someone "is the holocaust bad" (or something similarly immoral) to prove morality is objective is not a valid way to prove its objectivity.

Same could go for morals: If nobody is no longer alive to be killed, is killing still wrong?

It should be if it's objective.

Right, but you made the claim: "Since humanity's idea of right and wrong would go down the drain if humans stopped existing, then one can safely conclude that it is not objective."

Are you arguing that morals will cease after all life on Earth is gone or not? You seem to understand that if morals are objective, they will exist after life is gone, but you still make the claim that they won't exist after they are gone, yet you aren't backing that statement up.



If anything, I find P2 to be more unsupported. What makes God a better explanation than human psychology?

True, but I would rather discuss P1.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 5:13:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 4:49:24 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:22:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:13:43 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:05:32 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:00:23 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 3:44:32 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:56:13 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?

Some would argue that the general trend of certain crimes being illegal throughout history proves objective morality. However, this is highly debatable.

This is simply wrong. For something to be objective, it must exist as a fact beyond human opinion or even human existence. Since humanity's idea of right and wrong would go down the drain if humans stopped existing, then one can safely conclude that it is not objective.

Huh... I've never heard that argument before. A quick search on Google shows that whether or not animals have morals is debatable, so your argument isn't exactly strong at the moment.

Well it should remain a fact beyond the brain's existence. That's sort of what I meant to say.

Who's to say it isn't? As the old saying goes: "If a tree falls, and nobody hears it, does it still make a sound"? Well, of course it does! You don't need a human to observe the physics, for the physics to occur.

That's right, and that's why physics is objective. If morality is objective too, then one could demonstrate that morality still exists even if all life on earth disappeared tomorrow. That's what my point is. Asking someone "is the holocaust bad" (or something similarly immoral) to prove morality is objective is not a valid way to prove its objectivity.

Same could go for morals: If nobody is no longer alive to be killed, is killing still wrong?

It should be if it's objective.

Right, but you made the claim: "Since humanity's idea of right and wrong would go down the drain if humans stopped existing, then one can safely conclude that it is not objective."

Are you arguing that morals will cease after all life on Earth is gone or not? You seem to understand that if morals are objective, they will exist after life is gone, but you still make the claim that they won't exist after they are gone, yet you aren't backing that statement up.

I'm arguing against what you said before ("Some would argue that the general trend of certain crimes being illegal throughout history proves objective morality.")

I'm saying that this is bad evidence for the claim "morality is objective", since it, relies on the existence of the brain to prove its objectivity. If the brain didn't exist, where would morality go? Since no one has demonstrated how and why morality keeps existing if the brain ceased to exist, I conclude that morals are not objective and therefore do not exist apart from the brain. So if the brain dies or ceases to exist, morality ceases to exist as well. Thus, I reject P1.



If anything, I find P2 to be more unsupported. What makes God a better explanation than human psychology?

True, but I would rather discuss P1.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 5:15:47 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 5:13:45 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:49:24 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:22:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:13:43 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:05:32 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:00:23 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 3:44:32 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:56:13 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?

Some would argue that the general trend of certain crimes being illegal throughout history proves objective morality. However, this is highly debatable.

This is simply wrong. For something to be objective, it must exist as a fact beyond human opinion or even human existence. Since humanity's idea of right and wrong would go down the drain if humans stopped existing, then one can safely conclude that it is not objective.

Huh... I've never heard that argument before. A quick search on Google shows that whether or not animals have morals is debatable, so your argument isn't exactly strong at the moment.

Well it should remain a fact beyond the brain's existence. That's sort of what I meant to say.

Who's to say it isn't? As the old saying goes: "If a tree falls, and nobody hears it, does it still make a sound"? Well, of course it does! You don't need a human to observe the physics, for the physics to occur.

That's right, and that's why physics is objective. If morality is objective too, then one could demonstrate that morality still exists even if all life on earth disappeared tomorrow. That's what my point is. Asking someone "is the holocaust bad" (or something similarly immoral) to prove morality is objective is not a valid way to prove its objectivity.

Same could go for morals: If nobody is no longer alive to be killed, is killing still wrong?

It should be if it's objective.

Right, but you made the claim: "Since humanity's idea of right and wrong would go down the drain if humans stopped existing, then one can safely conclude that it is not objective."

Are you arguing that morals will cease after all life on Earth is gone or not? You seem to understand that if morals are objective, they will exist after life is gone, but you still make the claim that they won't exist after they are gone, yet you aren't backing that statement up.

I'm arguing against what you said before ("Some would argue that the general trend of certain crimes being illegal throughout history proves objective morality.")

I'm saying that this is bad evidence for the claim "morality is objective", since it, relies on the existence of the brain to prove its objectivity. If the brain didn't exist, where would morality go? Since no one has demonstrated how and why morality keeps existing if the brain ceased to exist, I conclude that morals are not objective and therefore do not exist apart from the brain. So if the brain dies or ceases to exist, morality ceases to exist as well. Thus, I reject P1.

Ah... yes, that makes sense.




If anything, I find P2 to be more unsupported. What makes God a better explanation than human psychology?

True, but I would rather discuss P1.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
missmedic
Posts: 386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 8:45:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 3:51:57 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 3:25:22 AM, missmedic wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

How does using force against someone destroy their ability to reason? I mean, with murder that is obvious, but I don't see how that works for theft, threats and fraud.

When force is introduced into the equation of human relations, survival becomes harder and harder until everyone dies. If there is some parasite living off others, one thing is clear: he needs his victims while they do not need him. If you use force to get what you want, not only do you give him reason to retaliate, but you diminish your own ability to survive by becoming dependent on your victim. Once your victims all die off, you're screwed. In the end, the result of force is death.

Secondly, why is the initiation of force never moral? Everything you say after this point doesn't show that the initiation of force isn't moral, you simply claim why the initiation of force negates a person's ability to use reason, but you don't show why this negation of reasonable action is immoral.

If a man uses force against you, he is declaring that he does not want to survive by means of reason. He is telling you that he doesn't recognize your right to exist as an independent individual. According to him, might makes right, and he is just taking his share from the local sucker.
When you come up against a person who views force as the proper means of relating to people, you know that this is a person not worth dealing with. This is a person outside the realm of morality, and once outside, moral conventions and principles have no place. There is only one way to deal with such a person, and that is with retaliatory force.
The difference between the initiation of force and retaliatory force is that retaliatory force is a response to force. It is force meeting force in kind. It is the only proper response to a person who initiates force.
Since force inhibits survival, men can only thrive within a society if they are shielded from the coercion of others
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 9:17:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

P1. There are objective moral facts.
P2: God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
C. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Problem is, P1 is an unsupported assertion. Why should I accept it?

You would be correct on P1.
There are no morals without agreement between two or more that are able to make a understood agreement.

So in the case of God spoken of in the bible, God"s agreement with men starts with Adam, and before the garden there was no agreement. Then Noah then Abraham and those of Abraham. But the covenant with Abraham wasn"t with the rest of mankind only the descendants of Abraham and those who are adopted in. Notice God held the Jews to a standard that He didn"t hold the rest of the world to, because He wasn"t in the same agreement with the rest of the world as He was with the Children of Israel.

So objective, no, no such thing, when it comes to the Lord God in the bible morals are always relative, and relative to the Lord God who makes and keeps and fulfills the agreements.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 9:19:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 8:45:16 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 2/22/2016 3:51:57 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 3:25:22 AM, missmedic wrote:
At 2/22/2016 2:53:29 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
There is an obscure argument for Gods existence going around that basically says:

How does using force against someone destroy their ability to reason? I mean, with murder that is obvious, but I don't see how that works for theft, threats and fraud.

When force is introduced into the equation of human relations, survival becomes harder and harder until everyone dies. If there is some parasite living off others, one thing is clear: he needs his victims while they do not need him. If you use force to get what you want, not only do you give him reason to retaliate, but you diminish your own ability to survive by becoming dependent on your victim. Once your victims all die off, you're screwed. In the end, the result of force is death.

That's if and only if force is applied constantly over time. Individual applications of force will not cause this.


Secondly, why is the initiation of force never moral? Everything you say after this point doesn't show that the initiation of force isn't moral, you simply claim why the initiation of force negates a person's ability to use reason, but you don't show why this negation of reasonable action is immoral.

If a man uses force against you, he is declaring that he does not want to survive by means of reason. He is telling you that he doesn't recognize your right to exist as an independent individual. According to him, might makes right, and he is just taking his share from the local sucker.

If someone steals from you, that doesn't intrinsically mean that they are declaring that you are not to survive by reason, because that doesn't make you unable to survive by reason. You can still survive by making reasonable choices if something is stolen from you, like going to the police after you have been robbed for example.

Secondly, this still doesn't show why the initiation of force isn't moral. You claim that his views of morality ("according to him, might makes right") differ from your views on morality (that the initiation of force isn't moral). Therefore, you show that morals are subjective if anything.

When you come up against a person who views force as the proper means of relating to people, you know that this is a person not worth dealing with. This is a person outside the realm of morality, and once outside, moral conventions and principles have no place. There is only one way to deal with such a person, and that is with retaliatory force.

Why does this put them outside morality? If they view might as right, then their moral good is the initiation of force, and therefore they are in a realm of morality, just not YOUR realm of morality.

The difference between the initiation of force and retaliatory force is that retaliatory force is a response to force. It is force meeting force in kind. It is the only proper response to a person who initiates force.

Why not shy away from the initiation of force, instead of retaliating? Humans have a fight or flight mechanism, so why is the "fight" response the only proper response, and not "flight"?

Since force inhibits survival, men can only thrive within a society if they are shielded from the coercion of others

The conclusion isn't supported by your premise here.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown