August Spies

alright just wanted to clear that up, don't have time for a full response yet.

August Spies

Well ill drop my point about morals existing somewhere. That was probably faulty.

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.

well it is not a matter of god making things go against logic, but rather that he would have created the logic that governs the world in the first place and so would have created morals as well.

Whether he could violate his own laws, that is a different question.

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

well this is a fine position to hold, but it does not address the question. The question is where is objective morality derived from. Saying rape is bad is not saying rape is OBJECTIVEY WRONG.

Unless of course this is what you meant, is it?


Or maybe it's because we should revere him
as a role model and superior intellect.
I think its fairly clear I haven't said anything you listed. A god would have created EVERYTHING including morality. So morality was dictated by him.

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

Where do you think objective moralityy comes from? what makes something objectivly right or wrong?

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

well I agree, I dont' believe in objective morality. So are you saying you dont' either?

Wiploc

If you aren't talking about a god who can violate logic, then you aren't talking about a god who can do fiat morality.

In another post, you said:

And thus you got me to grant that a truly omnipotent god could violate logic, and he could therefore do fiat morality. But now you are suddenly unsure of whether he could violate logic? That makes me unsure of whether he could do fiat morality. Because I'm just talking about the god you are talking about.


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 (though I don't see how, in light of my previous posts) let me say yes.


If you are talking about a god who could violate logic, then he could have created morality. But we wouldn't know whether he did. And if he did, we wouldn't know whether it was an objective morality.

If you are talking about a god who can't violate logic, then he can't make fiat morality.


[/QUOTE]

I don't have a position on whether it exists. My position is that even a god can't make morality by fiat. Unless of course you are talking about a truly omnipotent god who can violate logic. If god can violate logic, then we don't know nothin about nothin; no conclusions can be drawn.
crc

August Spies

wiploc:

And thus you got me to grant that a truly omnipotent god could violate logic, and he could therefore do fiat morality. But now you are suddenly unsure of whether he could violate logic?

well im not sure if an all-powerful god could violate his own logic, but he certainly would create the governing logic meaning he would have created morality orginally. And he could create it whatever way he wants.

But I think you are incorrect to act like violating "morality" is like "making a round square." A round square can logically not exist. Creating such a thing is impossible.

However, clearly morality can be violated. Rape and murder happen all the time. Morality is not math, you should not be trying to treat it as such.

So even if God could not change mathamatical laws he could still theoretically change morality. Since im still saying morality would be what God's will towards our behavior is. You still have not given a coherent basis for objective morality.

This is frustrating. I thought I answered comprehensively .
well no... you have not at all.

let me say yes.
im sorry but saying somethign "hurts people" is nowhere NEAR enough grounds to base objective morality on. When a relationship breaks up it hurts people, executing people hurts people, falling down and scraping your knee hurts people. Is gravel immoral? of course not, you need a tighter definition.

----------------------
edit:
do you really think this is comprehensive?

Wiploc

Compare it to what you've done. You used the word "objective" with no definition at all. Then you keep challenging me on what it means. You are the one who brought it up. I am only trying to comply with whatever you mean. I not only guessed what you meant (prescriptive morality, morality with an ought in it) but said every other definition I'd ever heard, and told what I thought was wrong with them. I don't know what to do beyond this. I don't know why you are still carping at me about this when you refuse to be any help yourself.




Then why did you give me static about god not being truly omnipotent if he couldn't do absolutely anything he wanted?
Plantinga disagrees. He reasons that logic is as primal, as "necessary" as god. Neither created the other.



What does an invented morality have to do with how I ought to behave?


Inventing the laws of physics and then violating them is no different from inventing the laws of logic and then violating them.



Which has been my point all along. An invented morality which one ought to comply with cannot logically exist. Such a thing is impossible.

Then you said god was truly omnipotent, so he could do anything.

Now you say he's not and he can't.

It seems to me you ought to pick a position and stay with it.

It is my position that if god is bound by logic, then any morality he invents is descriptive, non-binding, subjective, relative, irrelevent.

You have yet to offer a whiff of a reason to think I am wrong.




That's my point. I don't think that definition of objective morality is useful. You brought it up, objective morality. You refused to define it. You asked me to define it. I pointed out that this definition doesn't work. Now you are agreeing with me, but in a tone that sounds like you think you are disagreeing.



Bald assertion still. How could he change it in a manner such that we ought to care what he says?

Your position now, as I understand it is, that the reason we ought to do what god says is:

1. Not because of his power,
2. Not because of his inspiring example and wisdom,
3. Not because he created space and time.

Your whole explanation amounts to, in effect, "because he can do it." Yet it's not logical that he can do it. And you (intermittently at least) are saying he can't violate logic. You fail to establish any logical link between what god says we ought to do and what we really ought to do. You fail to establish any logical difference between a god-made morality and one made by my friend Ralph.



If you are defining objective morality as what god tells us to do, then of course he can make an objective morality. But, in that case, there is no reason for us to comply with that morality, even though it is "objective."

Beyond this tautology, you've made no attempt to offer a "coherent basis for objective morality" yourself. You are asking me to do what you refuse to do. But you are the one who brought it up. You ought to go first so that I'll understand what it is you want.

crc

August Spies

wiploc:

"Objective" is a standard philosophical term. It is not one you should have trouble with. In this since it would mean morality that is TRUE in an abstract sense and universal. Objective morality must be something we know is true outside of subjective interpretations and that would always be true and that would apply universally.

What does an invented morality have to do with how I ought to behave?

it is hw you ought to behave.

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

But I think you are incorrect to act like violating "morality" is like "making a round square."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventing the laws of physics and then violating them is no different from inventing the laws of logic and then violating them.

You have failed to show that morality is a principle of logic in the sense used here. You can't break a rule of logic like making A = not A but that doesn't mean you can't break morality, you can.

Now you say he's not and he can't.
no perhaps you should read more carefully. I said im not sure if he could, but its a seperate question. Im saying a God would create what objective morality exists, it would be tied to him. Could he change his mind about this morality later (thus breaking his own laws)? that is a seperate question.

Such a thing is impossible.
why? where would objective morality come from if not something a God would invent?

It is my position that if god is bound by logic,
a god would not be "bound" by logic, he would BE logic. He would BE morals.

You really should have learned this in philosophy 101.

You brought it up, objective morality. You refused to define it.

I didn't refuse to define it, objective/subjective is the most common distinction in philosophy, apologies if I assumed you would know what it means. I brought up objective morality because that is the only context in which this dicussion makes any fucking sense. You want to argue about subjective morality? thats a whole nother ballpark where this all-powerful god does not necessarily figure.

Your whole explanation amounts to, in effect, "because he can do it." Yet it's not logical that he can do it.

you really don't read very carefully. My position is that this "god" would not only have created morality, morality would BE a part of him. The reason you should obey it is because IT IS PART OF HIM. It is something HE would have created and thus HE would know what it is. If HE created it and HE told you what it was, you should follow it.

You fail to establish any logical difference between a god-made morality and one made by my friend Ralph.
just sloppy. sigh.

you've made no attempt to offer a "coherent basis for objective morality" yourself.
:banghead: dear god do you read at all? I dont' think there is a coherent basis for objective morality. I dont' think it exists. I don't think this type of God being discussed exists. But IF HE DID, morality would be part of his domain.

August Spies

let me also add that objective morality has normally been tied to god. Since the days of plato, objective morality has centered around theism. If you want to argue against this, which is fine to do, it is really up to YOU to make the argument (as 99percent attempts in "An argument for non-theistic objective morality ")

It is not really my job to show an arugment for why objective morality is tied to god unless you ahve first shown why the common opinion is wrong.

Wiploc

Thanks. True, abstract, universal, non-subjective. Got it.

Now suppose god says rape is morally good without making anything actually good about it (he doesn't make it pleasant or beneficial to women). Is rape therefore something that we should do? No. Why not? Because it hurts women.

What can you hold up against that? Because god says so? That's no more impressive than if Ralph says so. Therefore, the fact that god says rape is good doesn't make it true.

I don't grasp the abstract criterion. Perhaps, "Joe should kill Sam," is concrete, but, "Everybody should kill somebody," is abstract? If that's what abstraction is about, it provides no reason to comply with a rule.

God's rule that rape is good is universal, but so is Ralph's rule that you everybody at all times should kill whoever is on his or her left. The universality of a rule doesn't mean it should be followed.

There are two ways to read the subjectivity thing. Since god and I disagree on what's good, his rules are subjective in that sense. Since his rule applies equally in all times and places, it is not subjective in that sense --- but so is Ralph's rule, and that is no reason to obey Ralph.

Therefore, we have no reason to believe that god's rules are more true, abstract, universal, or non-subjective than Ralph's rules. By these standards, then, god's rules are not objective.

Quote:

What does an invented morality have to do with how I ought to behave? it is hw you ought to behave.

Why? You have given no reason. More accurately, you have given plenty of reasons, but backed away from them all when they were challenged. Is there any actual reason that you'll stand by?

Quote:

You have failed to show that morality is a principle of logic in the sense used here. You can't break a rule of logic like making A = not A but that doesn't mean you can't break morality, you can.

Here's what's not logical about an invented rule being morally binding: There is no logical reason to obey it. It doesn't logically follow that we should do what a powerful person says. It doesn't logically follow that we should do what a creator of space and time says. Etcetera: there is no attribute of god which you have named which logically makes us supposed to do what he says.

This is not a "principle of logic;" it is deduced by the use of logic. If logic works (if god doesn't violate logic) then there is no reason to follow god's fiat morality.

Quote:

Such a thing is impossible. why? where would objective morality come from if not something a God would invent?

You and I are neither of us maintaining that it could come from something else. I'm saying there's no reason to think god could do it. You're saying he could do it, but you won't say why anyone should believe that.

Quote:

a god would not be "bound" by logic, he would BE logic. He would BE morals. You really should have learned this in philosophy 101.

Insult. Pointless insult. And really stupid since you are flagrantly wrong on this point.

1. Nothing that stupid was said in my philosophy 101 class.

2. Eminent and influential philosphers disagree. I offer Plantinga as an example.

3. God is either bound by logic or not.
- 3.a. If he is bound by logic, then it is not a part of him.
- 3.b. If he is not bound by logic, if he is truely omnipotent, then he can have logic be a part of him or not at his whim.

Quote:

You brought it up, objective morality. You refused to define it. I didn't refuse to define it, objective/subjective is the most common distinction in philosophy, apologies if I assumed you would know what it means.

Morality is about how you are supposed to behave. There is something else, called "descriptive morality," which is about how people think they are supposed to behave; but this isn't what we were discussing. We were discussing how people are supposed to behave.

Then you introduced the term "objective morality." That changed nothing; we were still talking about what we ought to do; so I went along with it. But then you kept nagging me to define the word that you had introduced. I explained that we are talking about real morallity, stuff you are really supposed to do. I also gave alternitive definitions to show that they don't work. Now you have also introduced some alternative definitions (true, abstract, etc.) but they don't work either. I don't know why you keep harping on this. We both know we are talking about how people really ought to behave. I don't see the point in introducing this extra word; I don't see the point in nagging me to define your worthless word; I don't see the point in complaining that the historical definitions, which I pointed out don't work, don't work; I don't see the point in introducing your own useless definitions that don't work; and particularly don't understand why you just keep hammering this rather than getting on with the core of the thread, which is whether or how a god could make a morality that we should comply with.

Quote:

I brought up objective morality because that is the only context in which this dicussion makes any fucking sense.

I fucking agree.

Quote:

You want to argue about subjective morality?

Not me. I don't know why you keep doing this.

Quote:

Your whole explanation amounts to, in effect, "because he can do it." Yet it's not logical that he can do it. you really don't read very carefully. My position is that this "god" would not only have created morality, morality would BE a part of him.

Do you have any logical reason to believe this?

Quote:

The reason you should obey it is because IT IS PART OF HIM.

Is there any logical reason I should care?

Quote:

It is something HE would have created and thus HE would know what it is. If HE created it and HE told you what it was, you should follow it.

Is there any logical reason to think so?

Quote:

You fail to establish any logical difference between a god-made morality and one made by my friend Ralph. just sloppy. sigh.

It is the core issue. You made the assertion, but you offer no support for it.

Quote:

you've made no attempt to offer a "coherent basis for objective morality" yourself. :banghead: dear god do you read at all? I dont' think there is a coherent basis for objective morality. I dont' think it exists. I don't think this type of God being discussed exists. But IF HE DID, morality would be part of his domain.

If there is no reason to obey a god's moral dictates, then then it is unreasonable to obey them. If there is no reason to obey them, then they are not what you would call "objective."

I personally don't think you should do rape because it hurts women. You personally (if there were a god, and if he had a rule against rape) don't think you should do rape because that would be to disobey god. You don't think my rule is objective enough. I don't think your rule is objective enough. Your position is no stronger than mine. Your rule is no more objective than mine. The conclusion is, must be, that a god-made rule is no more objective than man-made rule. You have not offered, will not offer, can not offer any reason to disagree with this conclusion.

Let me also add that someone who cannot see anything wrong with hurting women is a moral cripple, but someone who can't see anything wrong with disobeying god is just someone who still has some personal moral judgement even after being exposed to the hateful doctrines of the Jehovah worshipers.
crc

Hey, I just had a thought. Perhaps your position is this: Of all the infinity of non-existant gods, the one you are talking about is a particular one that you used to believe in, and that god was morality or could control morality. There is no more reason to believe or disbelieve in this god more than others, but it just happens that you are talking about a particular god who, by definition, has this attribute. Is this fair?
crc

August Spies

I don't play cat and mouse cames wiploc. If you think that quoting out of context, constantly attacking positions your opponent does not hold and answering questions by talking about something else entirely constitutes good debating...

(as merely one example of this, when I claimed a this God would have created morality and then said one would need to follow it if God came down and told us what morality was you change the debate to say "oh why cause god is strong? well my friend ralph is strong, why not believe him" when clearly an all-knowing all-truthful god would both KNOW what morality was and would TELL THE TRUTH about it, it has nothing to do with stregnth)

well you can think whatever you want. I have outlined several times why morality would be tied to an all-powerful god yet you seem unable to grasp it enough to even attack it on its own terms. Quite likely this is a failure on my part to articulate it, as this discussion and subject really does not interest me that much.

Through this entire thread you have not once even come close to attempting to articulate a theory of objective morality (which was not a phrase I introduced here, it was what the ORIGINAL discussion was about in the thread that spawned this one) that would exist independently of an all-powerful consciousness.

The closest you have come is to claim "rape is bad, it hurts poeple" which does not eve begin to outline a plan for objective morality. It seems to me you have little by way of coherent moral view, but hopefully you just haven't taken the time to describe it.

Regardless, as you refuse to outline your argument in any kind of standard form, and as you have not put forward any coherent argument in non-standard form, and noting that it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to outline your objection, im leaving this utterly unfruitful discussion.

unless some other poster happens to come in and illuminate one or the other side.

EDIT: actually let me end it by saying its clear niether side is understanding one another. I don't believe in objective morality, so I dont' really have an interest in continuing this discussion in hope of clairty. peace

Wiploc

Peace.
crc