bd-from-kg

Hans:

You say that Tom Piper's arument is invalid because the conclusion is contained in the premises. But this is true of any valid argument. The conclusion must necessarily be contained in the premises in the same sense that Tom's is, or the argument isn't valid.

It seems to me that you are asking for something that is trivially impossible: a "proof" that contains no premises at all. But all proofs involve premises, which are by definition assumed to be true. And unless the conclusion is itself a tautology, at least one of the premises cannot be a tautology.

So I ask once again: what are you challenging your respondents to do? Is it conceivable to you that there is any possible response that you would consider to have met your challenge successfully? Is there, at least in principle, any way to "win"? If not, what's your point?

Hans

Tom Piper

You have failed to establish why harming others unless one has good reason to do so is wrong.

Your conclusion is that harming the child is without good reason and therfore is wrong.

The reasoning is circular. All acts of harm to others without reason are wrong because all acts of harm to others without reason are wrong. You have established nothing except to say that the acts were without reason.

Koyaanisqatsi

This is little more than a pointless semantics shuffle.

To label something "wrong" has no intrinsic meaning; it is entirely subjective in scope and application as has been demonstrated to be irrefutably "true" ad nauseum in these forums.

When you (or anyone) states, "I think that's wrong," what has actually occurred is mental shorthand for, "I think that is wrong based upon...." It's just that people don't always include the "based upon" qualifiers, primarily due to ego-centrism, but also due to linguistic laziness. We just don't create free-thinkers in this society.

The exact same thing is the case with stating something ridiculous like, "It's just wrong. Wrong is wrong!"

Whenever someone states something like that, all it really means is that the person doesn't readily know or is immediately capable of putting into specific words from what their outrage springs, but the meaning is still known for anyone on the "outside." They simply mean that there are reasons for their outrage that aren't readily available to them to put into succinct enough words; i.e., they have been indoctrinated into thinking something is morally wrong, labeled it as such, and that's that.

The shorthand word "wrong" is instantly equated with "rape, murder, torture, etc." and therefore interchangeable. For some, that list is incredibly long; for others, exceedingly short, but the outcome is the same: cognitive short cut for "indoctrinated subjective morality; this is what I was told I abhor under threat of some kind."

That's the argument behind all cults and it's the argument behind "ignorance is no excuse for the law." Morality is created and then enforcement is implemented; whether it's abstract (fictional god creatures) or concrete (the cops). Simple.

There's also, of course, empathy-based morality, but this is just another layer of the cognitive process that we all shorthand to "wrong."

The reason the exploded hypothetical is so difficult to qualify is because every single one of us agrees in essence and principle that such actions are "wrong;" i.e., that such clearly cruel and extreme trauma shouldn't be inflicted on anyone, but it might (just might) be understandable had we known that the rapist was himself repeatedly raped in the exact same manner by say, his own father or brother or Uncle, etc., when he was a six year old and, further, that the rapist had the mental equivalency as a result of his own childhood trauma of a six year old child and was only acting in the manner he knew, etc., etc.

It doesn't necessarily make his actions any less palatable, but it would certainly make his actions far more understandable and that's where the connection is either made or not made to indoctrinated morality.

Do I understand these actions? Yes. In understanding the actions, do they conflict with my own indoctrination of what is acceptable behavior by my peers and what is not acceptable behavior by my peers, etc.

These are the cognitive processes that actually go on within moral considerations, it's just that these processes are so automatic in most of us that we "shorthand" it all to "That's wrong!" and have no more to do with it.

As posted earlier, all morals are subjective, which means they are ultimately baseless (or, better, malleable) and most people (theists especially) can't stand that, because it removes their anchor as well as their ability to be pious (arguably a primary motivating force in cult membership of any kind).

So what does all this mean? It means that cults (of any kind) simply implant moral shorthand (which includes the threat of enforcement for disobeying that moral shorthand) in order for their communities to do what it is they want their communities to do.

Why? Because, IMHO, there are sociopaths out there who are simply not implantable and most of them are the ones who created all of these cults to hide behind to begin with.

If history teaches us anything it's that there's no better place to hide than in plain sight.

With this in mind, let's posit a different hypothetical, using Paul, for example, with all of that celibacy nonsense. Assume he needed to create his own moral universe to hide his own perversions and sociopathic tendencies within and you've got the Christian/Pauline cult (i.e., Catholicism); a hierarchy of piousness that masked the inverse of the sinner so that the Pope is actually the most guilty of all.

Call it Koy's inverse sin law.

It really doesn't matter what cult you plug into the equation; the level of piousness usually betrays the level of "sinning" going on underneath such a grandiose cover.

Scratch the surface of just about any "higher level" pious man and you'll find a multitude of sins, which makes sense and is obviously part of the intended design, which is all the more reason why the threat of disobeying has to be so extreme. Only Presidents, Kings, Popes and State sanctioned executioners have the right to murder someone, but don't think for a second that any of us aren't capable of doing such a thing.

Morality comes into play to temper that capability so that it can be manipulated at will by "higher level" pious men and thus, we've come full circle to the reason why morality was created to begin with.

It is little more than implanted behavior modification triggers so the elite can temper the masses.

This has been a party political broadcast.

britinusa

This reminds me of a former Heaven's Gate member's speculation on the multiple castrations, which (the ex-member contends) were an indirect result of HG leader Marshall Applewhite's deep-seated shame over his homosexuality.

Hans

With Koyaanisqatsi's post in mind the exercise becomes a mere attempt to identify the particular ideals of each respondent, which was not intended.

If outside of a theistic perspective it is a general consensus that morality is meaningless beyond a subjective viewpoint then the question is answered. The hypothetical can not be shown to be wrong. It can only be viewed as wrong where the actions are contrary to the viewer's ideals. Without a contrary opinion the exercise is over.

britinusa

OK, Hans, here's a hypothetical response (just to make this interesting thread even more interesting):
You (the hypothetical child rapist/murderer) did nothing wrong.

bd-from-kg

Hans:

[quote]With Koyaanisqatsi's post in mind the exercise becomes a mere attempt to identify the particular ideals of each respondent... [quote]

Well, of course if Koy is God, I guess we're done. But oddly enough, not everyone agrees with Koy. Although He has indeed asserted ad nauseam that labeling something "wrong" has no intrinsic meaning, and that this has been "demonstrated to be irrefutably true", that doesn't make it so.

There is no such "general consensus". A number of nontheists have advanced theories of objective morality.

Now if you would be kind enough to answer the questions I asked in my two earlier posts we might have a foundation for an interesting discussion.

DRFseven

But 'acertained to be contrary to one's views' defines 'wrong', so the hypothetical can be shown to be wrong.

Tom Piper

Sojourner,

In your post (8:56 am, April 8) you said,
I am not sure if that is directed at Hans or at me, Tom.

Tom

Hans

bd-from-kg

Well then, let us move forward!

Wrong as in immoral. As in it shouldn't be done. As in if someone performed such an act they (if not would) at least should feel guilty about it. Why is it wrong to do those acts to another? What is the basis for the conclusion that it is wrong?

Lets work out this detail before we move on.