99Percent

Hans: In your opening post you stated:

By adding the qualifier "shame" you have requested to prove a decidedly subjectivist morality. This, as tronvillain and others have shown you, is simply impossible. Certainly there are many immoral people that do not show the slightest hint of shame (as far as we can tell, that is, since this is really subjective) but have committed the most atrocious morally objectionable acts (again subjectively thinking).

Then you changed your request to: This now becomes a request to show why, universally and inequivocally, and therefore humanly objectively, how such actions would be considered wrong. Here then, it lies up to you to also first prove that a non theistic objective wrong and right exist apriori (and why) and then request how the morally questionable action stands in regard with this objectivist moral standard.

Hans

99Percent

I disagree. If someone wants to demonstrate that something is wrong it is their responsibility to demonstrate how and why, whether it's a theist, an objectivist or a subjectivist.

The questions are the same, "demonstrate how I (in the above hypothetical) have done anything wrong" and "Yes I want it shown how the actions are wrong." Both ask the reader to provide evidence the actions were wrong.

Tom Piper

Hans,

You said, The mission was to provide a demonstration that what was done is wrong.

A sound argument is an argument that is valid and has all true premises. To provide a sound argument for a proposition is to prove it. To prove a proposition is to demonstrate it.

The argument:

1. It is wrong to harm another human being unless one has good reason for doing so.

2. Raping, sodomizing, torturing, and then burying alive and leaving a six year-old child to die is harming the child, and

3. there can be no good reason for doing these things to a six year-old child.
----
4. Raping, sodomizing, torturing, and then burying alive and leaving a six year-old child to die is wrong.

The argument is valid and the three premises are true. Hence the argument is sound; hence, it is a proof; hence, it is a demonstration that raping, sodomizing, torturing, and then burying alive and leaving a six year-old child to die is wrong.

Once again, the mission was to provide a demonstration that what was done is wrong. The mission was not,as Hans acknowleged, to persuade a person to a particular view. So, here, as with any proof, the mere fact that someone doesn't find this argument convincing, even if the person doesn't believe that one of the premises is true, is irrelevant to the soundness of the argument, hence to its status as a proof/demonstration.


Tom

tronvillain

What exactly do you mean by "the three premises are true"?

tronvillain

I mean, while I and most other people think there are no good reasons to do those things to a six year-old, imagining perspectives under which there are isn't all that hard.

Tom Piper

Tronvillain,

I understand, up to a point, some of the responses that might be made to my scenario, but I am trying out a line of thinking, the conclusion of which I am not sure about. The thinking might go nowhere significant, ultimately. So bear with me.

Some questions, if you don't mind; some of your remarks are not clear to me.

Do you mean that you can imagine a possible situation in which you allow that there is a reason to rape, sodomize, torture and bury alive and leave to die a six-year old child, which situation would show that it is not wrong to do these things? If so, will you describe the situation, please!

If you merely mean that one can imagine people who see nothing wrong with doing these things, people whom one could not convince otherwise, I can also imagine such people-- there are human beings who are psychopathic/sociopathic.

Tom

tronvillain

Tom Piper:
Actually, it's not that hard, though one does have to resort to extreme situations, such as saving the entire world from destruction. Some people might do it to save the lives of a million people, or a thousand, or a hundred, or even their own life, while others might do it for money or power. Where people draw the line will vary, but it will generally be quite high.

I'd say that sociopaths represent a section of the possible perspectives under which such an action might be permissible, but only a section. Another perspective would be one under which someone felt empathy and guilt as a result of the act, but not enough to outweigh the pleasure they derived from it. Another is that of many people, under extreme conditions.

Sojourner553

I have shown you HISTORICAL how conservative Christians have ALREADY justified such cruel actions.

AND YOU CHOOSE TO PRETEND IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!!

YOU'RE NOT SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS... YOU'VE GOT A CONSERVATIVE/FUNDAMENTALIST AGENDA, THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY PROVE

HAHA!


Sojourner

Tom Piper

tronvillain,

I asked, You responded with I don't quite understand the thrust of your response here. In the first 'extreme' situations, the fact that someone might have to do something that is morally wrong in order to avoid some greater moral offence doesn't show that the lesser moral offence is not wrong. Sometimes one must choose between wrong: this doesn't make the choice a non-wrong.

In the case of raping, sodomizing, torturing, and burying alive for power or for money, the mere fact that someone will do things that are wrong doesn't show that they things they do aren't wrong. Your examples don't themselves show anything in this regard.

I then said, Your response was, i don't see the force of your examples, by themselves. With respect to your answer with respect to sociopaths, you characterize this as a possible perspective under which the rape, sodomy, ... , might be premissible. I trust you mean merely that the sociopath would/might consider it permissible, not that it is permissible.

With respect to the rest of the response, perhaps it is true that there are people who, in some sense, take pleasure from such actions. (I say 'perhaps' because while it is clear that there are people who do such things, it is not clear that there are any who 'take pleasure from such actions. But even if there were...) But here again, what does the mere fact that some people will do these things show? After all people do things that are wrong, even when they know them to be wrong. The fact they a person does something does not, in itself, show that what they did wasn't wrong.

Tom

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

Tom Piper

Sojourner553,

In response to my comment, you said, No need to yell!

I saw your list, and I am well aware of the fact that such things have happened. But my response to you is the same as my response/question to tronvillain-- The mere fact that some people do these things doesn't show that what they did was not wrong. Moreover, the mere fact that they thought they were right doesn't show that what they did wasn't wrong.

You then said, Part of this simply mystifies me-- the conservative/fundamentalist agenda part. I don't have any clear idea what you mean here. With respect to your suggestion that I can't prove something or other, if you mean that I can't prove that it is wrong to rape, sodomize, torture, ... a six year-old, your remark is just a denial of the proof I have offered. In order to show that it isn't a proof, you must show that one or more of the premises isn't true, or show that it isn't valid, or show that there is more to proving something than providing a sound argument fo it.

Tom