Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 06-25-2003, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
I suppose the materialist doesn't have to provide these answers,

Actually, the materialist might want to provide the answers, but he doesn't need to use materialism to do it.

Quote:

But the problem is there is no rational basis for morality, so why should it exist?

Hold on. There may not be a metaphysical basis for morality, but that's a far cry from no rational basis.

HRG · 06-25-2003, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Go ahead, This is what I've been asking for for three years.

I already did. Read my previous posts, please.

That you don't recognize the evidence is just because you start from your presuppositions.

Regards,
HRG.

theophilus · 06-26-2003, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf
Huh? When did I assume the conclusion of my argument to justify one of my premises? Show me where I did that, please, or apologize for making a false accusation.

Unlike you, I try to explain my statements. Here is your post and my response, which included my explanation. If you can show me that I misrepresented you, I'll be glad to apologize.

It's a moral obligation, and yes, moral obligations can exist in a materialistic world. It's just that they exist in the minds of human beings.

That's a big dose of question begging. You must first establish that there is an objective moral standard and then that we (parents in this case) are obligated to follow it.
Note, popularity or general consent does not constitute objectivity.
You must explain how transcendent concepts like morality can arise from a purely materialist system (hint - rocks are neither good nor bad).

I have seen something similar to this asserted when Christians use the scripture as the basis for an argument. The atheist responds that they must "first prove that God exists before they can claim the bible is God's word."

Pehaps this is not precisely a petitio principi, but it begs the question that subjective morality creates "obligations" of any type.

Normal · 06-26-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Hold on. There may not be a metaphysical basis for morality, but that's a far cry from no rational basis.

Show me the rational basis for believing it is wrong for another person to kill someone.

Thomas Metcalf · 06-26-2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by theophilus :

Quote:

Pehaps this is not precisely a petitio principi, but it begs the question that subjective morality creates "obligations" of any type.

Who said this morality is subjective? I'm saying it's objective, insofar as it applies equally to everyone. It's not independent of humans' minds, however. Now, if I'm correct, then moral obligations can exist in a materialist world.

Suppose you were to assert that moral obligation exist independently of people's minds. That would be a positive claim, and requiring of some support. So I'll let you do that now.

The reason I have to believe they exist within people's minds is that there's quite a lot of disagreement upon ethical rules, and no one (in my experience) can think of a plausible place for them to exist elsewhere.

Wyz_sub10 · 06-26-2003, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
Show me the rational basis for believing it is wrong for another person to kill someone.

Two ways that I can see:

1) It endorses behaviour that is not sustainable within society and contributes to self-destruction

2) As creatures valuing self-preservation, we can recognize that "goal" in others, and having developed empathy, can act to respect this goal (further fostering that others respect ours)

Normal · 06-26-2003, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
Two ways that I can see:

1) It endorses behaviour that is not sustainable within society and contributes to self-destruction

How does someone else killing a person contribute self-destruction? What if it was to expand their fortunes? Why should anyone care about society?

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
2) As creatures valuing self-preservation, we can recognize that "goal" in others, and having developed empathy, can act to respect this goal (further fostering that others respect ours)

So what's the rational basis for empathy?

mosaic · 06-26-2003, 04:24 PM

If you are not a nihilist, your arguments are nonsensical normal. You obviously arent but using a nihilistic argument as reason to belive in transcendence. Why should man care for society? He cant live without it. Its quite obvious. But since you want something behind that to ensure that you keep your pathologies in check, I'll more socratic questions, why does god care for soicety, why isnit neccesary for it do to do so? what meaning beyond it, that is, what value is inherent in the universe that shows that "killing is wrong." If you just want to move back to god, I want to see the value written and spelled out in matter. I want proofs that show that "killing is wrong" is embedded in atoms themselves. Until then, these questions are for nihilists and others who cant come to grips with the plain and obvious.

Normal · 06-26-2003, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mosaic
If you are not a nihilist, your arguments are nonsensical normal. You obviously arent but using a nihilistic argument as reason to belive in transcendence. Why should man care for society? He cant live without it. Its quite obvious. But since you want something behind that to ensure that you keep your pathologies in check, I'll more socratic questions, why does god care for soicety, why isnit neccesary for it do to do so? what meaning beyond it, that is, what value is inherent in the universe that shows that "killing is wrong." If you just want to move back to god, I want to see the value written and spelled out in matter. I want proofs that show that "killing is wrong" is embedded in atoms themselves. Until then, these questions are for nihilists and others who cant come to grips with the plain and obvious.

a) Man can live without society, man predated society.

b) The transcendent argument does not mean that killing is wrong is "written in the atoms", if it was, there would be materialistic explaination for it. The transcedent argument denies the existence of a materialistic explaination for morality.

theophilus · 06-26-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG
I already did. Read my previous posts, please.

Dodge.

As an astute person, you should be able to give a brief summary of your "proof" as I do of mine in nearly every post.

That you don't recognize the evidence is just because you start from your presuppositions.

Regards,
HRG.

That you DO accept the evidence is just because you beg the question. You just assume your standard of proof and then argue from that.
But you aren't even successful at that, because you can't give a naturalistic/materialistic explanation for any abstract concepts like "laws of nature," or "laws of thought."

So, you haven't done it in other posts; you just made assertions like you've continued to do here and like you will most probably do to this challenge.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2003, 04:24 PM	#108
mosaic Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: anchorage Posts: 321	If you are not a nihilist, your arguments are nonsensical normal. You obviously arent but using a nihilistic argument as reason to belive in transcendence. Why should man care for society? He cant live without it. Its quite obvious. But since you want something behind that to ensure that you keep your pathologies in check, I'll more socratic questions, why does god care for soicety, why isnit neccesary for it do to do so? what meaning beyond it, that is, what value is inherent in the universe that shows that "killing is wrong." If you just want to move back to god, I want to see the value written and spelled out in matter. I want proofs that show that "killing is wrong" is embedded in atoms themselves. Until then, these questions are for nihilists and others who cant come to grips with the plain and obvious.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.