Wiploc

August Spies:
> Look this is getting to far off-topic, if you want
> to argue about what morals a god could create
> we should do a new thread.

crc:
Done.

But I don't see how it was off topic.
We were talking about natural rights.
You said gods could make some other
kind of rights. I pointed out that they
couldn't. Which leaves natural rights
as the only possible kind, right?

In any case, here's our new thread.


crc:
> > "If Mother Teresa and Underdog willed you to
> > commit rapes, the rapes would still be wrong. "

> buddy last time I checked underdog was not an
> all-powerful, all-knowing being that created all
> existance.

Distinctions without a difference. If Underdog
were all-powerful, that would let him make rape
good? No. (Caveat: Of course an all-powerful
god could make rape good by making it fun and
beneficial for the victims, so that they liked it.
But that's not what we're talking about.)

If he were all-knowing, then he could make rape
good? No.

If he created all existence, that would somehow
empower him to make rape good? No.

Rape is bad because it hurts people. Women
don't like it. If a god said rape was good, it
would still hurt people; people still wouldn't like
it; so it would still be bad. Dispite god's will,
there wouldn't be any significant sense in which
rape was good just because a god liked it.



> <snip, rearrange>Yes. God can make
> anything morally true or false. (look I dont
> 'believe in god, but if one DID exist it would
> cleary be HIM that dictated morality)

Morality has to do with how we ought to
behave; are we agreed on this? If so, in what
sense could a god make it so I ought to do
rapes?

He could make me do rapes out of fear of
hellfire, but that has nothing to do with
morality.

He could order me to do rapes to please him,
but then he wouldn't be moral.

There isn't anything left. There is no angle a
god could use to make bad things good.




> > If somebody thinks gods can make rape
> > good, then they have the power-worshipping
> > I'm-just-following-orders kind of morality that
> > would be useful to guards at an extermination
> > camp.

> OH come of it. If a fucking God came down from
> the sky and told you something you woudl believe
> it instantly.

We're talking logic here. My personal weakness
and credulity are not the point. The point is,
logically speaking, if a fucking god came down
from the sky and told me that rape was good,
would it actually be good. There is no way to
make a logical case that it would actually be
good. If words have meaning, then rape is
bad.



> > . . Is there any reason that I should
> > do it god's way rather than my own?

> Yes, the reason would be that its against god's
> will. Your argument makes no sense.

I'm a free moral agent. How does god's will get
primacy over mine?


> > If god's will cannot produce an ought, then
> > he cannot create rights.

> OF COURSE A GOD COULD CREATE MORAL OUGHTS!!!!!!!!!

How do you figure?

crc

Dr. Retard

I concur with wiploc. One possible grounds for rejecting naturalistic ethics is that you can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Leave aside whether this is true, or whether, if true, it indeed grounds a rejection of naturalistic ethics. What's important for this thread is that the derivation "God likes rape; therefore, rape is good" is a prime example of an 'ought' being derived from an 'is'. If you want to reject naturalistic ethics on these grounds, you have to reject divine-command ethics while you're at it. And while "This feels pleasant; therefore, this is good" may not be an air-tight inference, at least it has something to do with morality as we know it -- putting it in stark contrast with "God likes this; therefore this is good".

August Spies

wiploc:

I pointed out that they
No you merely claimed they couldn't. An all-powerful god can create anything it wants.

If Underdog
were all-powerful, that would let him make rape
good?
yes. Unless your definition of all-powerful is "only some powers"

Distinctions without a difference.
uh not at all. You said god is someone we look up to, like mother teresa. I pointed out that a god would be all-powerful, mother teresa is not. As im basing my claim on the fact that a god would be all-powerful and all knowing, the underdog/mother teresa comparison makes no sense.

If he created all existence, that would somehow
empower him to make rape good? No.


yes. yes it would. You have not made an argument why it wouldn't.

Rape is bad because it hurts people.
There are lots of things that hurt people that different religions have considered good. Hell, many religions allow murder in certain cases. And our modern laws are no different. We have plenty of ideas that hurt people but we consider good (im sure putting people in jail for crimes hurts those people).

people still wouldn't like
it;

uh are you really going to argue that what humans "like" is grounds for objective morality? Humans dont' like a lot of thigns.

If so, in what
sense could a god make it so I ought to do
rapes?
You OUGHT to do anything that would please an all-powerful god. Look your whole argument so far is reseting on an emotional appeal to rape it seems. God's will implies an ought.

There is no angle a
god could use to make bad things good. [...]If words have meaning, then rape is
bad.

okay, why dont' we start from here. Prove to me that something is bad or good. Your argument is resting on assumptions that rape is bad (something I certanly agree with, but NOT somethign that has been shown to be OBJECTIVELY true by any means). I think this is the first step you need to do to start your argument.

I'm a free moral agent.
since when? You are just throughting our assumptions.

Here please do this: structure your argument in a standard argumentative form
Premise 1
Premise 2
Premise 3
etc...
Conclusion.

sound good? It will be more productive.

August Spies

Dr. Retard:

at least it has something to do with morality as we know it -- putting it in stark contrast with "God likes this; therefore this is good".
uh.... id say that as MOST PEOPLE know it God's will CERTAINLIY has something to do with morality. In fact as MOST PEOPLE know it Gods will has FAR more to do with morality than "what feels good".

again... im an aethist, so these aren't my personal beliefs. But an all-powerful god can, being all powerful, do whatever is in his power, which is everything. He can certainly make moral oughts, since he made everything. Everything, not just matter and energy.

(well... I mean if he did exist he would have made everything)

Wiploc

August Spies:
> Here please do this: structure your argument in a
> standard argumentative form
> Premise 1
> Premise 2
> Premise 3
> etc...
> Conclusion.
>
> sound good? It will be more productive.

crc:
That would be nice. I don't think either of us
can do it, though. I tell you what: If you'll go
first, I promise to do exactly as good a job as
you do.



crc:
> > If he created all existence, that would somehow
> > empower him to make rape good? No.

> yes. yes it would. You have not made an argument
> why it wouldn't.

It's a non-sequiter. If I said, "I eat Grape
Nuts, therefore you must wear a hat," and
you said, "I don't see the relationship;
breakfast foods have nothing to do with hats,"
and I said, "Yes, yes they do. You have not
made an argument why they don't," then we
would have reversed positions. I would be
the one making a claim but refusing to support
it.



> > Rape is bad because it hurts people.

> There are lots of things that hurt people
> that different religions have considered
> good.

That's my point. A religious declaration
that something is good doesn't actually make
it good. There is no more of a relationship
between religiously-declared good and actual
good than there is between Grape Nuts and
hats.


> > people still wouldn't like it.

> uh are you really going to argue that what
> humans "like" is grounds for objective morality?
> Humans dont' like a lot of thigns.

I don't think I would have introduced the word
"objective," but yes. Humans are the ones
who mean something by the word, "good." The
word doesn't mean anything beyond what humans
mean by it. And it doesn't mean much beyond, "I
like it," or "It is beneficial."

But that's me. I'll go with whatever you mean.
As long as you mean something. When you say
that a god could make something good by willing
it, without making anything about it actually good,
then I don't think you mean anything.



> > If so, in what sense could a god make it so
> > I ought to do rapes?

> You OUGHT to do anything that would please
> an all-powerful god.

Because he's powerful? Should I also want to
please people who are stronger or richer than
me? What is the relationship you are trying
to establish?


> God's will implies an ought.

How? Why do you believe that?


> > There is no angle a god could use to
> > make bad things good. [...]If words
> > have meaning, then rape is bad.

> okay, why dont' we start from here. Prove
> to me that something is bad or good.

Sorry, can't do it. But my point is, neither
can you.

I think rape is bad because it hurts women.
I don't see any way to make it worse by
saying it hurts women and gods don't like
it. Your position is that it somehow makes
it worse, or that god could even make it
good just by saying so.

I at least have a revealed position: rape is
bad because it hurts women. That is
what is bad about it.

As near as I can tell, you haven't even
settled on a position. Maybe you think a god
could make rape good because he is strong.
Or maybe it's because he made the universe.
Or maybe it's because we should revere him
as a role model and superior intellect.



> Your argument is resting on assumptions
> that rape is bad (something I certanly agree
> with, but NOT somethign that has been shown
> to be OBJECTIVELY true by any means). I think
> this is the first step you need to do to start
> your argument.

If you can tell the difference between good and
bad, you ought to do what is good. That's my
position. I don't see what is added by adding
the word "objectively." I don't even know
where you would put it. "If you can objectively
tell the difference between objective good and
objective bad then you objectively ought to do
what is good?"

I have never seen a discussion of morality
improved by the injection of the word "objective."
Suffice it to say that we are talking prescriptive
morality rather than descriptive morality. We
are talking about what people actually ought to
do rather than what they think they ought to do.

I know two tests of objective morality. One is
that the moral rule applies to everybody at all
times and in all situations. By this standard,
"Everybody, at all times, and in all situations,
should kill the person on his or her left," is an
example of an objective moral rule.

The other test has to do with whether you get
opinions about the rule, whether you can "opt
out" of the system. And if Jehovah himself
made the rule that everybody should kill the
person to his or her left, I'd think that sucked
and I would opt out.

So the only tests of "objectivity" that I am
familiar with are useless. Let me know if you
know of a better one.



> > I'm a free moral agent.

> since when?

If you don't think we get to make moral
choices, then we are further apart than
I thought.
crc

August Spies

wiploc: I find your reply method (the >>'s) to be very distracting, could you do it another way?

August Spies

okay I find your response to very muddled and full of bad analogies, so let me try to simplify this.

1. Are you talking about objective morality?
you hint that you are not. Well if you are not discussing objective morality the discussion ends here. You can subjectively believe X is bad because it hurts people. Thats fine. Im talking about objective morality.

2. If we presuppose a God. Would rape be morally wrong prior to existance? Would these objective morals exist prior to God's creation of the world? If so, where do they exit? in the realm of platonic forms?

3. If we presuppose an all-powerful God, how can objective morality exist outside of him? If he could not control what morality WAS then it would a realm (a very important realm) outside of his control. He would thus not be all-powerful correct?
This is basically my argument, God would be all poweful and have control overeverything, including morality.

4. An all powerful, all-knowing, all-present God IS in fact everything. Morals and rights would thus be a PART OF HIM.

For morals to exist objectively they indeed must exist somewhere. Where do they exist if not God (his mind/will)? This is far from a non-sequitar.

Dr. Retard

Quickly...

Where is "2+2=4"? Where is "F=ma"?

August Spies

well some would say in the realm of forms.

Im not sure math forumlas are in the same realm as morals. 2+2=4 would be true is all humans died. Would "the right to property" exist if no humans were around? Also, 2+2=4 is something we call true because it works over and over again. Everytime we add 2 to 2 we get 4. However Morality can't be shown to work in the same way math can.

You do however have a point. I guess this brings up the question of what qualifies something as objective?

Wiploc

August Spies:
I find your reply method (the >>'s) to be very distracting, could you do it another way?

crc:
I'll see what I can do. Other systems get confusing if several people are talking, or if nested quotes are being used, but that doesn't happen here too often.


August Spies:
Are you talking about objective morality?
you hint that you are not.


This is frustrating. I thought I answered comprehensively as to what I mean and what I think you may mean. You, on the other hand, have given no clue as to what you mean.

At some risk of being misunderstood (but I don't see how, in light of my previous post) let me say yes, I am talking about objective morality; and I never hinted that I was not.


August Spies:
2. If we presuppose a God. Would rape be morally wrong prior to existance?

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking whether if people didn't exist, rape would be wrong if they did exist? Plantinga points out that contrafactual questions are full of snares for the unwary.


August Spies:
Would these objective morals exist prior to God's creation of the world?

Depends. If you are inventing creation stories, you can invent them either way.


August Spies:
If so, where do they exit?

Not sure what you're suggesting. I'll hazard a guess: In the same place as any other relationship?



August Spies:

in the realm of platonic forms?


I don't believe in Platonic forms. I think they're silly. And I certainly don't believe they have a location. And if you can posit a realm of platonic forms, I can posit a realm of moral locations.


August Spies:
3. If we presuppose an all-powerful God, how can objective morality exist outside of him? If he could not control what morality WAS then it would a realm (a very important realm) outside of his control. He would thus not be all-powerful correct?

You got me there. I am so used to dealing with Christians who don't really believe in an omnipotent god (they call their god omnipotent, but they don't think he can violate logic) that I am guilty of using their language. If you'll grant that an omnipotent god could make a square circle and an unmarried bachelor, then I'll grant that he could make fiat morality.


August Spies:
This is basically my argument, God would be all poweful and have control overeverything, including morality.

Touche.


August Spies:
4. An all powerful, all-knowing, all-present God IS in fact everything.

That doesn't follow.


August Spies:
Morals and rights would thus be a PART OF HIM.


Only if he wanted them to be. As you have pointed
out, he can have things any way he wants them.


August Spies:
For morals to exist objectively they indeed must exist somewhere.


You can't know that if there is an omnipotent god. He could, by an act of will, make morals that are both objective and without location. He could even make that statement simultaneously true and false.



August Spies:
Where do they exist if not God (his mind/will)? This is far from a non-sequitar.


It seems an unwarranted leap to me. Why do you think morals have places?
crc

{Edited to posit a realm of moral locations.}