Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Morally right

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 5:48:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
"Morally right" means a disposition or will that one should conform to. "Morally wrong" means a disposition or will that one should not conform to.

"Should" is defined as "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

If something is *objectively* morally right or wrong, therefore, there must exist a disposition and will that we truly should conform to. Disposition and will only exist within mind. Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference. This mind is referred to as God.
uncung
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 8:35:41 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:48:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Morally right" means a disposition or will that one should conform to. "Morally wrong" means a disposition or will that one should not conform to.

"Should" is defined as "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

If something is *objectively* morally right or wrong, therefore, there must exist a disposition and will that we truly should conform to. Disposition and will only exist within mind. Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference. This mind is referred to as God.

morality standard is subjective.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 8:37:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:48:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Morally right" means a disposition or will that one should conform to. "Morally wrong" means a disposition or will that one should not conform to.

"Should" is defined as "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

Well I certainly can't criticize you for not defining your terms ...

If something is *objectively* morally right or wrong, therefore, there must exist a disposition and will that we truly should conform to.

Big word *IF*. So begins the appeal to incredulity. You can't believe the alternative extreme and common scenarios in which so called 'objective' morality break down. At the end of my rebuttal I'll ask you to prove one way or another using your method weather or not certain acts are *objectively* moral or immoral. I presume you'll find yourself in the same predicament as Sam Harris.

Disposition and will only exist within mind.

Indeed, the human mind.

Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference.

Given that humans are the only beings capable of assessing moral statements on earth, and all humans are currently confined to earth, all you're doing is proving humans are the minds in which morality is (subjectively) *objectively* confirmed. Unless you have a methodological tome from God that you've been hiding ...

This mind is referred to as God.

You can't make that leap yet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I ask you to tell me why the following moral statements are *objectively* either true or false.

Homosexual sex is morally wrong.

Brest feeding in public is morally wrong.

Racism is morally right.

Cannibalism for the sake of personal or group survival is morally acceptable.

A morally wrong act should be accepted if those who commit it work towards the greater good for society.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of pushing the man onto the tracks to save the other 5 lives.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of doing nothing.

Killing a child is morally wrong.

Killing child soldiers is morally wrong.

Technologically advanced aliens attack earth, their only demand to spare all humanity is that one human child is sacrificed by human hands. The person/people that kills the child is not morality culpable for killing the child.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 11:04:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:48:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Morally right" means a disposition or will that one should conform to. "Morally wrong" means a disposition or will that one should not conform to.

"Should" is defined as "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

If something is *objectively* morally right or wrong, therefore, there must exist a disposition and will that we truly should conform to. Disposition and will only exist within mind. Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference. This mind is referred to as God.

Anything can be 'proved' with some fruity definitions. Why should I accept that 'morally right' means what you outline above, rather than some other valid definition? For example, that it describes accordance with a particular set of interpersonal behavioural rules that are emergent from the structure of social interaction and certain core concepts inherent to that structure?

By shoe-horning in concepts that necessarily implicate sentience you're demonstrating nothing more than your clumsy attempt to stack the deck from the outset. If we consider "morals" to be the rules governing interpersonal behaviour, we can meaningfully discuss them - and perhaps even come by certain objective conclusions - without having to assume any sort of intelligence or teleology.

The contrast here is potentially significant; rather than relying on appeals to some ethereal superbeing, objective moral standards can be demonstrated from first principles. We can create a moral calculus that yields results justifiable in the same sense as seen in the statements of mathematics or logic, independent of personal beliefs.

The only reason I can think of for someone not seeing this as a hugely positive step is if that person were actually trying to use their moral argument to evangelise their belief in god, rather than push for a more morally consistent and just society. This would in turn suggest that said person would be putting their own self-interest - perpetuation and protection of personally valued beliefs - ahead of the well-being and betterment of others.

What are your thoughts?
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 11:50:29 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:48:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Morally right" means a disposition or will that one should conform to. "Morally wrong" means a disposition or will that one should not conform to.

"Should" is defined as "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

If something is *objectively* morally right or wrong, therefore, there must exist a disposition and will that we truly should conform to. Disposition and will only exist within mind. Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference. This mind is referred to as God.
"Baby rape is only morally wrong if it's done for fun"-benshapiro.
Which means all other reasons for baby rape are morally right according to benshapiro.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
missmedic
Posts: 387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 2:47:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:48:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Morally right" means a disposition or will that one should conform to. "Morally wrong" means a disposition or will that one should not conform to.

"Should" is defined as "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

If something is *objectively* morally right or wrong, therefore, there must exist a disposition and will that we truly should conform to. Disposition and will only exist within mind. Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference. This mind is referred to as God.
Wrong..........
Gods are not clearly defined by a unified definition, so "god" becomes subjective, just like belief. However reality is the one think we all share, this makes reality objective.
All a person needs in order to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:22:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 8:37:34 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:48:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Morally right" means a disposition or will that one should conform to. "Morally wrong" means a disposition or will that one should not conform to.

"Should" is defined as "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

Well I certainly can't criticize you for not defining your terms ...

If something is *objectively* morally right or wrong, therefore, there must exist a disposition and will that we truly should conform to.

Big word *IF*. So begins the appeal to incredulity. You can't believe the alternative extreme and common scenarios in which so called 'objective' morality break down. At the end of my rebuttal I'll ask you to prove one way or another using your method weather or not certain acts are *objectively* moral or immoral. I presume you'll find yourself in the same predicament as Sam Harris.

I don't believe moral statements such as "punishing an innocent person is morally right" could ever be true because it's an inherently irrational statement. It doesn't have anything to do with incredulity.

Second, our method of discerning whether things are objectively moral or immoral just relates to our *knowledge* of whether it's moral or immoral not whether it's *actually the case* that it's moral or immoral. Moral objectivism is an ontology, not an epistemology.

Third, the presumptions that underlie your statements are flawed.

IF there exists moral subjectivity, moral objectivism is false.
There is moral subjectivity.
Moral objectivism is false.

IF there's a moral statement that can't be discerned to be factually true or false, moral objectivism is false.
There's a moral statement that can't be discerned to be factually true or false.
Moral objectivism is false.

Both of these presumptions are illogical.

Before I give any answers I want to see what argument you're making by this, preferably in a syllogistic format.

Disposition and will only exist within mind.

Indeed, the human mind.

Not only in the human mind if moral rights and wrong are objective.

Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference.

Given that humans are the only beings capable of assessing moral statements on earth, and all humans are currently confined to earth, all you're doing is proving humans are the minds in which morality is (subjectively) *objectively* confirmed. Unless you have a methodological tome from God that you've been hiding ...

God's disposition and will is known by what's objectively morally good.

This mind is referred to as God.

You can't make that leap yet.

Where is the leap?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'll refer you to the above before answering this to see what point you're trying to make.

I ask you to tell me why the following moral statements are *objectively* either true or false.

Homosexual sex is morally wrong.

Brest feeding in public is morally wrong.

Racism is morally right.

Cannibalism for the sake of personal or group survival is morally acceptable.

A morally wrong act should be accepted if those who commit it work towards the greater good for society.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of pushing the man onto the tracks to save the other 5 lives.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of doing nothing.

Killing a child is morally wrong.

Killing child soldiers is morally wrong.

Technologically advanced aliens attack earth, their only demand to spare all humanity is that one human child is sacrificed by human hands. The person/people that kills the child is not morality culpable for killing the child.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 6:16:45 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 4:22:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/10/2016 8:37:34 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:48:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Morally right" means a disposition or will that one should conform to. "Morally wrong" means a disposition or will that one should not conform to.

"Should" is defined as "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

Well I certainly can't criticize you for not defining your terms ...

If something is *objectively* morally right or wrong, therefore, there must exist a disposition and will that we truly should conform to.

Big word *IF*. So begins the appeal to incredulity. You can't believe the alternative extreme and common scenarios in which so called 'objective' morality break down. At the end of my rebuttal I'll ask you to prove one way or another using your method weather or not certain acts are *objectively* moral or immoral. I presume you'll find yourself in the same predicament as Sam Harris.

I don't believe moral statements such as "punishing an innocent person is morally right" could ever be true because it's an inherently irrational statement. It doesn't have anything to do with incredulity.

'Innocent' can be a subjective term, but in non-subjective terminology it essentially means someone one who ought not be punished - it's irrational because by definition an innocent person shouldn't be punished. But what you do is add the moral claim it's wrong, yet there are scenarios in which the innocent could be punished for the greater good of society.

There are 2 cases which punishing the innocent is could be required, thus making it morally acceptable as a reality of life. First comes the more direct scenario:

Sheriff Case: Imagine that you are the sheriff in an unruly town that has recently been struck by a series of murders. The townspeople are convinced that a certain person (call them "Jack") committed the murder. They call upon you to execute Jack in your official capacity. But you are pretty sure that Jack is innocent. You try to tell the townspeople your reasons for thinking this, but they don't seem to care. You know that if you do not carry out their wishes, the town is likely to descend into anarchy and violence. These outcomes are contrary to the goals you seek to achieve by having a system of punishment in the first place. [http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com...]

And when looking at our justice system innocent people are convicted all the time. We may try to reduce it, but we know some innocents are being punished, because we can not scrap our justice system this is an acceptable loss.

Second, our method of discerning whether things are objectively moral or immoral just relates to our *knowledge* of whether it's moral or immoral not whether it's *actually the case* that it's moral or immoral. Moral objectivism is an ontology, not an epistemology.

Morality cannot exist without humans. If it were God and just the lower animals in the universe morality wouldn't exist. Morality requires a human context. And there are contexts in which your objective standards break down.

Third, the presumptions that underlie your statements are flawed.

IF there exists moral subjectivity, moral objectivism is false.
There is moral subjectivity.
Moral objectivism is false.

Your claim is no better, just in the opposite direction.

IF there's a moral statement that can't be discerned to be factually true or false, moral objectivism is false.
There's a moral statement that can't be discerned to be factually true or false.
Moral objectivism is false.

No, my premise is no moral statement can be proven objectively true in all plausible contexts. You claim punishing the innocent is objectively wrong, yet if there exists a scenario in which punishing the innocent is morally acceptable then it can't be objectively wrong.

Both of these presumptions are illogical.

Before I give any answers I want to see what argument you're making by this, preferably in a syllogistic format.

- Human morality is confined to the human condition, which is a subjective experience.
- All moral statements from humans are modified by the human condition.
- If humans can reasonably reject *objective* standards said standard I not objective.
- The expansivness of the human condition and the morality derived from it allows humans to reasonably reject objective standards.
- If you humans can reject objective standards subjective morality is the only conclusion.

Disposition and will only exist within mind.

Indeed, the human mind.

Not only in the human mind if moral rights and wrong are objective.

How do you know Gods morality is not as subjective as the common mans?

Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference.

Given that humans are the only beings capable of assessing moral statements on earth, and all humans are currently confined to earth, all you're doing is proving humans are the minds in which morality is (subjectively) *objectively* confirmed. Unless you have a methodological tome from God that you've been hiding ...

God's disposition and will is known by what's objectively morally good.

This mind is referred to as God.

You can't make that leap yet.

Where is the leap?

Well for starters even if you do prove objective morality Sam Harris would argue that that doesn't necessitate God. Morality can exist in the minds of humans as a tool to maximize human well being and limit unnecessary suffering. According to him there are obvious moral choices the limit human progress and choice the further it. They are simply the finite constraints of the human condition - but those constraints don't necessitate God.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'll refer you to the above before answering this to see what point you're trying to make.

I'm disappointed. All I've been asking for is a methodology to determines God's will.

I ask you to tell me why the following moral statements are *objectively* either true or false.

Homosexual sex is morally wrong.

Brest feeding in public is morally wrong.

Racism is morally right.

Cannibalism for the sake of personal or group survival is morally acceptable.

A morally wrong act should be accepted if those who commit it work towards the greater good for society.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of pushing the man onto the tracks to save the other 5 lives.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of doing nothing.

Killing a child is morally wrong.

Killing child soldiers is morally wrong.

Technologically advanced aliens attack earth, their only demand to spare all humanity is that one human child is sacrificed by human hands. The person/people that kills the child is not morality culpable for killing the child.
imperialchimp
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 9:12:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 1:00:12 PM, tarantula wrote:
The god featured in the Bible is more immoral than any human.

that's subjective
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!
tarantula
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 10:29:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 9:12:34 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 10/10/2016 1:00:12 PM, tarantula wrote:
The god featured in the Bible is more immoral than any human.

that's subjective

The Biblical accounts of its actvities don't do it any favours!
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 10:37:04 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 4:22:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/10/2016 8:37:34 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:48:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Morally right" means a disposition or will that one should conform to. "Morally wrong" means a disposition or will that one should not conform to.

"Should" is defined as "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

Well I certainly can't criticize you for not defining your terms ...

If something is *objectively* morally right or wrong, therefore, there must exist a disposition and will that we truly should conform to.

Big word *IF*. So begins the appeal to incredulity. You can't believe the alternative extreme and common scenarios in which so called 'objective' morality break down. At the end of my rebuttal I'll ask you to prove one way or another using your method weather or not certain acts are *objectively* moral or immoral. I presume you'll find yourself in the same predicament as Sam Harris.

I don't believe moral statements such as "punishing an innocent person is morally right" could ever be true because it's an inherently irrational statement. It doesn't have anything to do with incredulity.

Second, our method of discerning whether things are objectively moral or immoral just relates to our *knowledge* of whether it's moral or immoral not whether it's *actually the case* that it's moral or immoral. Moral objectivism is an ontology, not an epistemology.

Third, the presumptions that underlie your statements are flawed.

IF there exists moral subjectivity, moral objectivism is false.
There is moral subjectivity.
Moral objectivism is false.

IF there's a moral statement that can't be discerned to be factually true or false, moral objectivism is false.
There's a moral statement that can't be discerned to be factually true or false.
Moral objectivism is false.

Both of these presumptions are illogical.

Before I give any answers I want to see what argument you're making by this, preferably in a syllogistic format.

Disposition and will only exist within mind.

Indeed, the human mind.

Not only in the human mind if moral rights and wrong are objective.

Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference.

Given that humans are the only beings capable of assessing moral statements on earth, and all humans are currently confined to earth, all you're doing is proving humans are the minds in which morality is (subjectively) *objectively* confirmed. Unless you have a methodological tome from God that you've been hiding ...

God's disposition and will is known by what's objectively morally good.

This mind is referred to as God.

You can't make that leap yet.

Where is the leap?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'll refer you to the above before answering this to see what point you're trying to make.

I ask you to tell me why the following moral statements are *objectively* either true or false.

Homosexual sex is morally wrong.

Brest feeding in public is morally wrong.

Racism is morally right.

Cannibalism for the sake of personal or group survival is morally acceptable.

A morally wrong act should be accepted if those who commit it work towards the greater good for society.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of pushing the man onto the tracks to save the other 5 lives.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of doing nothing.

Killing a child is morally wrong.

Killing child soldiers is morally wrong.

Technologically advanced aliens attack earth, their only demand to spare all humanity is that one human child is sacrificed by human hands. The person/people that kills the child is not morality culpable for killing the child.
"Baby rape is only morally wrong if it's done for fun"-benshapiro.
Which means all other reasons for baby rape are morally right according to benshapiro.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 4:53:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 11:04:57 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:48:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Morally right" means a disposition or will that one should conform to. "Morally wrong" means a disposition or will that one should not conform to.

"Should" is defined as "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

If something is *objectively* morally right or wrong, therefore, there must exist a disposition and will that we truly should conform to. Disposition and will only exist within mind. Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference. This mind is referred to as God.

Anything can be 'proved' with some fruity definitions. Why should I accept that 'morally right' means what you outline above, rather than some other valid definition?

If you're able to give me an example of one thing that's morally right or morally wrong that doesn't reference the disposition or will of the mind then I'll rescind my definition.

For example, that it describes accordance with a particular set of interpersonal behavioural rules that are emergent from the structure of social interaction and certain core concepts inherent to that structure?

The morality or immorality of behavior is determined by ones intent, not the outcome of said behavior. Social conventions also can't serve as an objective basis for morality since social conventions are human constructs.

By shoe-horning in concepts that necessarily implicate sentience you're demonstrating nothing more than your clumsy attempt to stack the deck from the outset. If we consider "morals" to be the rules governing interpersonal behaviour, we can meaningfully discuss them - and perhaps even come by certain objective conclusions - without having to assume any sort of intelligence or teleology.

The contrast here is potentially significant; rather than relying on appeals to some ethereal superbeing, objective moral standards can be demonstrated from first principles. We can create a moral calculus that yields results justifiable in the same sense as seen in the statements of mathematics or logic, independent of personal beliefs.

Except that it is philosophically incompatible with an atheistic worldview.

The only reason I can think of for someone not seeing this as a hugely positive step is if that person were actually trying to use their moral argument to evangelise their belief in god, rather than push for a more morally consistent and just society. This would in turn suggest that said person would be putting their own self-interest - perpetuation and protection of personally valued beliefs - ahead of the well-being and betterment of others.

What are your thoughts?

There is no possible world in which morality could be objective if a standard of moral perfection does not exist. Standards of moral perfection are ALWAYS in reference to the disposition and will of the mind. Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of the human mind. Therefore, standards of moral perfection can be objective IFF there's a mind whose disposition and will is objectively true.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 5:32:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I don't believe moral statements such as "punishing an innocent person is morally right" could ever be true because it's an inherently irrational statement. It doesn't have anything to do with incredulity.

'Innocent' can be a subjective term, but in non-subjective terminology it essentially means someone one who ought not be punished - it's irrational because by definition an innocent person shouldn't be punished. But what you do is add the moral claim it's wrong, yet there are scenarios in which the innocent could be punished for the greater good of society.

Innocent means to not be guilty of a crime or offense.

Here's the original claim: I don't believe the statement "punishing an innocent person is morally right" could ever be true because it's an inherently irrational statement.

To which you responded: "there are scenarios in which the innocent could be punished for the greater good of society."

Notice that this does nothing to prove that the statement "punishing an innocent person is morally right" could be true.

The lesser of two evils does not make the lesser evil something morally good. Right? If forced to choose whether 5 babies or 5,000,000 babies need to be brutally tortured, choosing the 5 babies doesn't make it a "morally good" choice. It's a lesser evil but still morally abhorrent that 5 babies will be brutally tortured.

There are 2 cases which punishing the innocent is could be required, thus making it morally acceptable as a reality of life. First comes the more direct scenario:

"morally acceptable" or pragmatic? Let's find out.

Sheriff Case: Imagine that you are the sheriff in an unruly town that has recently been struck by a series of murders. The townspeople are convinced that a certain person (call them "Jack") committed the murder. They call upon you to execute Jack in your official capacity. But you are pretty sure that Jack is innocent. You try to tell the townspeople your reasons for thinking this, but they don't seem to care. You know that if you do not carry out their wishes, the town is likely to descend into anarchy and violence. These outcomes are contrary to the goals you seek to achieve by having a system of punishment in the first place. [http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com...]

That would make punishing an innocent person morally good? Punishing an innocent person is good if it's a means for calming public unrest? I'm completely flabbergasted why you would think that.

And when looking at our justice system innocent people are convicted all the time. We may try to reduce it, but we know some innocents are being punished, because we can not scrap our justice system this is an acceptable loss.

This operates under the assumption that punishing an innocent person is morally and legally wrong.

Second, our method of discerning whether things are objectively moral or immoral just relates to our *knowledge* of whether it's moral or immoral not whether it's *actually the case* that it's moral or immoral. Moral objectivism is an ontology, not an epistemology.

Morality cannot exist without humans. If it were God and just the lower animals in the universe morality wouldn't exist. Morality requires a human context. And there are contexts in which your objective standards break down.

Logically fallacious reasoning cannot exist (be employed) without humans either. Doesn't mean there isn't an objectively correcr way of reasoning. Objectivism doesn't specify context, absolutism does that.

IF there exists moral subjectivity, moral objectivism is false.
There is moral subjectivity.
Moral objectivism is false.

Your claim is no better, just in the opposite direction.

"Moral statements can be factual" allows subjectivity. "All moral statements are subjective" allows no objectivity.

IF there's a moral statement that can't be discerned to be factually true or false, moral objectivism is false.
There's a moral statement that can't be discerned to be factually true or false.
Moral objectivism is false.

No, my premise is no moral statement can be proven objectively true in all plausible contexts. You claim punishing the innocent is objectively wrong, yet if there exists a scenario in which punishing the innocent is morally acceptable then it can't be objectively wrong.

Objectivism doesn't specify the context and a scenario of this hasn't been provided yet.

- Human morality is confined to the human condition, which is a subjective experience.
- All moral statements from humans are modified by the human condition.
- If humans can reasonably reject *objective* standards said standard I not objective.

They can't reasonably do this.

- The expansivness of the human condition and the morality derived from it allows humans to reasonably reject objective standards.
- If you humans can reject objective standards subjective morality is the only conclusion.

Non-cognitivism.

Not only in the human mind if moral rights and wrong are objective.

How do you know Gods morality is not as subjective as the common mans?

Because moral dispositions, like "compassion" are necessarily morally virtuous.

Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference.

Given that humans are the only beings capable of assessing moral statements on earth, and all humans are currently confined to earth, all you're doing is proving humans are the minds in which morality is (subjectively) *objectively* confirmed. Unless you have a methodological tome from God that you've been hiding ...

God's disposition and will is known by what's objectively morally good.

This mind is referred to as God.

You can't make that leap yet.

Where is the leap?

Well for starters even if you do prove objective morality Sam Harris would argue that that doesn't necessitate God. Morality can exist in the minds of humans as a tool to maximize human well being and limit unnecessary suffering. According to him there are obvious moral choices the limit human progress and choice the further it. They are simply the finite constraints of the human condition - but those constraints don't necessitate God.

Running late. Gtg

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'll refer you to the above before answering this to see what point you're trying to make.

I'm disappointed. All I've been asking for is a methodology to determines God's will.

I ask you to tell me why the following moral statements are *objectively* either true or false.

Homosexual sex is morally wrong.

Brest feeding in public is morally wrong.

Racism is morally right.

Cannibalism for the sake of personal or group survival is morally acceptable.

A morally wrong act should be accepted if those who commit it work towards the greater good for society.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of pushing the man onto the tracks to save the other 5 lives.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of doing nothing.

Killing a child is morally wrong.

Killing child soldiers is morally wrong.

Technologically advanced aliens attack earth, their only demand to spare all humanity is that one human child is sacrificed by human hands. The person/people that kills the child is not morality
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 6:25:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 6:16:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
You can't make that leap yet.

Where is the leap?

Well for starters even if you do prove objective morality Sam Harris would argue that that doesn't necessitate God. Morality can exist in the minds of humans as a tool to maximize human well being and limit unnecessary suffering. According to him there are obvious moral choices the limit human progress and choice the further it. They are simply the finite constraints of the human condition - but those constraints don't necessitate God.

The possibiliy of objective morality absent God isn't allowed for in the context of my argument since objective moral rights and wrong reference the disposition and will of a morally perfect being who exists independent of humanity.

Harris has problems with his own argument since it doesn't discriminate between the well-being of people who do evil and the well-being of people who do good.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'll refer you to the above before answering this to see what point you're trying to make.

I'm disappointed. All I've been asking for is a methodology to determines God's will.

In short, moral reasoning. Moral reasoning is predicated upon our pre-existing knowledge. We don't "learn" what's good and bad, we bring the truth to light in a way that we "see" it. Like being given information that helps us see a pattern in a grand puzzle, a pattern that we didn't see before.

I ask you to tell me why the following moral statements are *objectively* either true or false.

Homosexual sex is morally wrong.

Brest feeding in public is morally wrong.

Racism is morally right.

Cannibalism for the sake of personal or group survival is morally acceptable.

A morally wrong act should be accepted if those who commit it work towards the greater good for society.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of pushing the man onto the tracks to save the other 5 lives.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of doing nothing.

Killing a child is morally wrong.

Killing child soldiers is morally wrong.

Technologically advanced aliens attack earth, their only demand to spare all humanity is that one human child is sacrificed by human hands. The person/people that kills the child is not morality culpable for killing the child.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 12:06:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:48:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Morally right" means a disposition or will that one should conform to. "Morally wrong" means a disposition or will that one should not conform to.

"Should" is defined as "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

If something is *objectively* morally right or wrong, therefore, there must exist a disposition and will that we truly should conform to. Disposition and will only exist within mind. Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference. This mind is referred to as God.

How do you know there is an objective morality without assuming God exists? How do you know it exists assuming God does exist?
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 6:58:46 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:48:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Morally right" means a disposition or will that one should conform to. "Morally wrong" means a disposition or will that one should not conform to.

"Should" is defined as "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

If something is *objectively* morally right or wrong, therefore, there must exist a disposition and will that we truly should conform to. Disposition and will only exist within mind. Objectivity means that the truth of the matter is independent of our assessments to the contrary. Therefore, if something is objectively morally right or wrong, there must exist a mind whose disposition and will is necessarily true in order to be the standard-bearer by which all moral rights and wrongs reference. This mind is referred to as God.
Objective = independent of mind.
Your god is mindless.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 7:14:40 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 6:25:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:16:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
You can't make that leap yet.

Where is the leap?

Well for starters even if you do prove objective morality Sam Harris would argue that that doesn't necessitate God. Morality can exist in the minds of humans as a tool to maximize human well being and limit unnecessary suffering. According to him there are obvious moral choices the limit human progress and choice the further it. They are simply the finite constraints of the human condition - but those constraints don't necessitate God.

The possibiliy of objective morality absent God isn't allowed for in the context of my argument since objective moral rights and wrong reference the disposition and will of a morally perfect being who exists independent of humanity.

Hence my post about you stacking the deck. It's the setup for equivocation, where you attempt to attack subjectivity in general and then switch to the solution being only a narrow and unjustified version of objectivity. It's dishonest.

Harris has problems with his own argument since it doesn't discriminate between the well-being of people who do evil and the well-being of people who do good.

Demonstrate why this is a problem, rather than a virtue.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'll refer you to the above before answering this to see what point you're trying to make.

I'm disappointed. All I've been asking for is a methodology to determines God's will.

In short, moral reasoning. Moral reasoning is predicated upon our pre-existing knowledge. We don't "learn" what's good and bad, we bring the truth to light in a way that we "see" it. Like being given information that helps us see a pattern in a grand puzzle, a pattern that we didn't see before.

I ask you to tell me why the following moral statements are *objectively* either true or false.

Homosexual sex is morally wrong.

Brest feeding in public is morally wrong.

Racism is morally right.

Cannibalism for the sake of personal or group survival is morally acceptable.

A morally wrong act should be accepted if those who commit it work towards the greater good for society.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of pushing the man onto the tracks to save the other 5 lives.

Given the trolley problem, I choose the 'morally right' choice of doing nothing.

Killing a child is morally wrong.

Killing child soldiers is morally wrong.

Technologically advanced aliens attack earth, their only demand to spare all humanity is that one human child is sacrificed by human hands. The person/people that kills the child is not morality culpable for killing the child.