tronvillain

Typical fundie? As far as he can tell, he doesn't think there's anything objectively wrong with the hypothetical, but that it is subjectively wrong. Did I miss something?

Tom Piper

tronvillain,

I have not said that my premises are true unless someone can show that they are false.I have offered the argument as a sound argument showing that it is wrong to rape, sodomize, ...,a six year-old child.

The following is also a sound argument:

1. If the state that Tom Piper is in now is Pennsylvania, then the capital of the state Tom Piper is in Harrisburg.

2. The state Tom Piper is in now is Pennsylvania.
----
3. The capital of the state that Tom Piper is in now is Harrisburg.

I have said that there is a difference between producing a sound argument (producing an argument that satisfies the conditions on soundness) and showing that the sound argument is sound (demonstrating that the conditions for soundness are satisfied). I have done the former. I make no claim to having done the latter. I have maintained that the burden on one who wants to show that the argument is unsound is no less that the burden on one who wants to show that it is sound. To show that it is unsound, one must show that either one or more of the premises is false, or that the argument is invalid. I also maintain that no one has done anything of this latter sort. The suggestion that, at times, seems to be operative here is that if I haven't shown that it is sound, then it is thereby shown to be unsound, and that is a mistake.

In the 'Pennsylvania' argument that I have presented above, I trust it is clear that the argument is sound (or (unsound) as it stands, and that the fact that I have not demonstrated the truth of either of the premises doesn't change the status of the argument. Demonstrating the truth of the premises to you, tronvillain, may change your belief about the status of the argument, which status right now is probably 'I don't know whether it is a sound argument or not' .

Yes! For one, if the human is guilty of a capital offence, and there are no mitigating circumstances, it is permissible to execute (or imprison for life-- I don't want to get into a discussion of the death penalty here) .

I am not sure about what your point about 'criteria' is. Is it your view that we must have criteria that against which we measure candidates for 'not-just-opinon' to determine if the candidates are not just opinion, and without such criteria we are not entitled to say that the candidate is not just opinion, we are to remain skeptical. (If this is your point, this program is doomed, even in the non-moral realm, as the failure of a Roderick Chisholm-types epistemic enterprises as an attempt to answer the skeptic shows. If this is not your point, please elablorate.)

Isn't this just a failure of the sort I have described above. Even if you think that the premises are mere 'subjective opinion', you surely can see that that they are doesn't follow from the mere fact that the truth of the premises has not been demonstrated. If that is so, then the premises of my 'Pennsylvania' argument are mere 'subjective opinion' also, since I have not demonstrated that they are true, or that there is 'something objective about them'. I urge you to be fair when it comes to an evaluation of our relative positions in this discussion.

Tom

Tom Piper

Hans,

In a response to bd-from-kg you say, If all it takes to defeat any such attempt is the utterance 'that is subjective opinion', or the utterance 'that is theistic' , or the utterance 'you haven't proved it, or something like these mere utterances, then no one will be able to satisfy this 'request'.

For some reason, in effect, you merely assert that the points raised by bd-from-kg are mere assertions, and you view the alleged fact that they are mere assertions as damning, but you don't seem to apply the same standard to your own assertions. No attempt can stand against such a 'standard'.

I have offered what I sincerely take to be a sound argument that demonstrates what you asked be demonstrated in your first post. I knew full well that neither you nor any one of a number of others would simply accept it as a sound argument (which, I will say once again for emphasis, does not show that it isn't sound) . Part of the point of the presentation was to give us something concrete to evaluate in an effort to see what concrete considerations generate the views that have been called 'subjectivism' in these threads. So far, all that has emerged is a position that seems to amount to nothing more than (i) a prior embrace of 'subjectivism' and an inclination (a one-sided inclination, at that) to view 'defeat by mere denial' as legitimate.

bd-from-kg is beating his/her head against a wall trying to get you to engage in substantive non-question-begging argumentation, but you refuse to engage.

Tom

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

tronvillain

Tom Piper:

Your argument will be sound under subjective morality, but then so will an argument that yields the opposite conclusion.

Morality appears to be a matter of taste. It's possible that there is something more more to morality and that objective moral principles exist, but unless they can be demonstrated morality remains subjective. While ultimately some people's moral opinions may be right and some people's moral opinions may be wrong, unless objective criteria to judge them by can be found, all we have are the opinions themselves. So, subjective morality is the null hypothesis.

So, unless you can demonstrate that your premises are objectively true, you conclusion is nothing more than your opinion. Of course, it's also my opinion and the opinion of virtually everyone else on the planet, but it's still just an opinion.

free12thinker

How did you do something wrong? Follow my flawless quote, and you will have your answer.

"The only acts which are immoral are those which negatively impact others, beliefs aside"

Read it yet? Good. You negatively impacted someone else. You have purposefully impeded someones progress in humanity. You have caused pain, beliefs aside.

Rather simple (un-impossible) reply.

Sojourner553

That's what I have been saying too. It's the foundation of the philosophy of humanism.
Hans wants to "hear" that all morality is based on religion -- so he justs shuts this out.

Sojourner

John Page

You're absolutley right about Hans, he/she refuses to provide any further information about the hypothetical circumstances in question. However, lets go back to the original post:

You're all assuming this is a human. Forget the child bit, we're all somebody's child. Maybe the 'victim' was a fish, maybe a pig, maybe even a vegetable. How would these hypotheticals change anybody's posts here? On the veggie angle try: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000118" target="_blank">Vegetarian Utopia</a> if you haven't already. I think juicy young ones are best in a liquidizer.

Cheers! *gulp* *burp*

Hans

bd-from-kg

It's your cart and your horse!

The OP asks why the actions are wrong, as in the perpatrator should (not would or will) feel guilty for doing them. In other words why are they immoral. The assumption in the OP is that if the actions can be shown to be immoral a normal healthy perpatrator would feel guilt. The subjective stance has been demonstrated. The theist stance is hardly a challenge. The objective stance which you claim exists is all that remains. I don't wish to guess at the definition your looking for so please provide the definition you would like or need to use to fulfill your objective morality argument.

I look forward to your arguments.

Hans

Sojourner553

You are mistaken that I am a theist.

Hans

Tom Piper

Your argument:
I then replied:

I would like to correct my response as the above is inaccurate. Your argument is structured correctly, it is premise one that I have a problem with.

I believe premise one is in part fundamentaly identical to the challenge. I don't see how one can pressume in an objective manner that doing harm to others without good reason is wrong.