Author Topic: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread  (Read 9004 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #87 on: October 08, 2011, 03:14:14 PM »
Ok help me out then and tell me exactly what will qualify as verifiable proof when it comes to proving moral value ? How does one prove to somebody that raping and killing a child is always wrong no matter what the zeitgeist is. what exactly are you looking for empirical evidence ?

It's your claim. You should have the evidence to back it up. You need to show that it is objectively true. Just saying that it is (which is all that oyu have done is not evidence). If you need to ask me what the evidence is, then obviously you don't have it, don't you. So the claim has no value and needs to be retracted.

As for how to do that, you have to show that any person capable of morality and reason would naturally come to the same conclusion, no matter the conditions of their upbringing or culture. And no, before you try it you can't say that it is a natural conclusion for any moral person like you attempt to below. That argument is circular and has no basis.


 if you dont have the moral fortitude or rational capabilities to recognize this act as wrong bjectivly...then what exactly can i say to you ?

Again, this statement (aside from being an insult) is just a claim from you that everyone should reach the same moral conclusions. What you need to do is provide evidence for why everyone should naturally reach the same moral conclusions. As opposed to just trying to claim that everyone who doesn't share your values is immoral or irrational (that is called an Ad Hominem, by the way).



Child raping is not objectively wrong unless you can actually show why it is objectively wrong.

You need me to tell you WHY child rape and murder is wrong always and in every circumstance ?

If all you have are fallacy and assertions then you have nothing, and claiming objectivity is a lie on your part.

Yes it's a lie because i have asserted it. bravo you win. I'm just about finished here

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #88 on: October 08, 2011, 03:14:48 PM »
Well, doesn't it make sense that objectivity should leave no wiggle room?  And if so, why is there wiggle room?  You cannot call something objectively wrong unless everyone agrees that something is objectively wrong.  Can you prove that everyone agrees that something is objectively wrong? 

Your incredulity towards any opinion that does not match yours is the problem.

Objective means something isn't based on opinion so consensus of opinion plays no part if it's objective, so there can be an objective moral value without consensus of the all people. It's the act in itself thats wrong.

This is why i'm "incredulous" because i'm actually talking to people who think the rape and murder of children is subject to personal opinion, not an objective rule wich says it ALWAYS wrong. Please someone say it aint so !

This is simply a side insult aimed at the forum. You're the one making the claim, you have to justify it. No has said thatit isn't wrong. It is the objectivity that is being disputed. Stop making fallacies.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7277
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #89 on: October 08, 2011, 03:19:51 PM »

Objective means something isn't based on opinion so consensus of opinion plays no part if it's objective, so there can be an objective moral value without consensus of the all people. It's the act in itself thats wrong.

This is why i'm "incredulous" because i'm actually talking to people who think the rape and murder of children is subject to personal opinion, not an objective rule wich says it ALWAYS wrong. Please someone say it aint so !

That's just it, you're not talking to people who think it is subject to personal opinion, nor are they people who specifically state their opinion.  You're talking to people who have evidence that humans have always been subjective on a wide variety of topics that you might consider morally wrong, or even reprehensible.  In fact, there is evidence that human morals have always been evolving.  If you cannot accept this, then there isn't much to discuss.

You're attempting to claim something that there is no evidence for, namely, that you KNOW there is some objective moral set based on what, exactly?  How do you KNOW there is an objective moral set?  Please, show us how you KNOW this.  Continuing to claim that our arguments are evidence that we personally accept something that you believe is always wrong is not helping you.  Rather, it is making your argument far less effective.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #90 on: October 08, 2011, 03:20:08 PM »
Ok help me out then and tell me exactly what will qualify as verifiable proof when it comes to proving moral value ? How does one prove to somebody that raping and killing a child is always wrong no matter what the zeitgeist is. what exactly are you looking for empirical evidence ?

It's your claim. You should have the evidence to back it up. You need to show that it is objectively true. Just saying that it is (which is all that oyu have done is not evidence). If you need to ask me what the evidence is, then obviously you don't have it, don't you. So the claim has no value and needs to be retracted.

As for how to do that, you have to show that any person capable of morality and reason would naturally come to the same conclusion, no matter the conditions of their upbringing or culture. And no, before you try it you can't say that it is a natural conclusion for any moral person like you attempt to below. That argument is circular and has no basis.


 if you dont have the moral fortitude or rational capabilities to recognize this act as wrong bjectivly...then what exactly can i say to you ?

Again, this statement (aside from being an insult) is just a claim from you that everyone should reach the same moral conclusions. What you need to do is provide evidence for why everyone should naturally reach the same moral conclusions. As opposed to just trying to claim that everyone who doesn't share your values is immoral or irrational (that is called an Ad Hominem, by the way).



Child raping is not objectively wrong unless you can actually show why it is objectively wrong.

You need me to tell you WHY child rape and murder is wrong always and in every circumstance ?

If all you have are fallacy and assertions then you have nothing, and claiming objectivity is a lie on your part.

Yes it's a lie because i have asserted it. bravo you win. I'm just about finished here

No, claiming that it's objective without evidence is a lie.

Again, nothing but an attack on your part.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #91 on: October 08, 2011, 03:22:03 PM »
Well, doesn't it make sense that objectivity should leave no wiggle room?  And if so, why is there wiggle room?  You cannot call something objectively wrong unless everyone agrees that something is objectively wrong.  Can you prove that everyone agrees that something is objectively wrong? 

Your incredulity towards any opinion that does not match yours is the problem.

Objective means something isn't based on opinion so consensus of opinion plays no part if it's objective, so there can be an objective moral value without consensus of the all people. It's the act in itself thats wrong.

This is why i'm "incredulous" because i'm actually talking to people who think the rape and murder of children is subject to personal opinion, not an objective rule wich says it ALWAYS wrong. Please someone say it aint so !

This is simply a side insult aimed at the forum. You're the one making the claim, you have to justify it. No has said thatit isn't wrong. It is the objectivity that is being disputed. Stop making fallacies.

You are saying child rape and murder is subjective...No ? this means (dependent on personal interpretation) unless you have another definition ? so what about the person who interprets this to be fine ? does it cease to be wrong and then become right according to the personal opinion of that person ?

it's not a side insult, i'm merely reporting what has been said.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7277
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #92 on: October 08, 2011, 03:24:33 PM »

You are saying child rape and murder is subjective...No ? this means (dependent on personal interpretation) unless you have another definition ? so what about the person who interprets this to be fine ? does it cease to be wrong and then become right according to the personal opinion of that person ?

it's not a side insult, i'm merely reporting what has been said.

It has not been said, as you suggest.  All that has been said is that human morals are subjective, and they always have been.  You picking one thing, such as child rape. does not change that fact.  Again, where is any evidence that there exists an objective set of morals?  Is it written down somewhere, and can you show that all humans agree on this set of objective morals?

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #93 on: October 08, 2011, 03:29:05 PM »

You are saying child rape and murder is subjective...No ? this means (dependent on personal interpretation) unless you have another definition ? so what about the person who interprets this to be fine ? does it cease to be wrong and then become right according to the personal opinion of that person ?

it's not a side insult, i'm merely reporting what has been said.

It has not been said, as you suggest.  All that has been said is that human morals are subjective, and they always have been.  You picking one thing, such as child rape. does not change that fact.  Again, where is any evidence that there exists an objective set of morals?  Is it written down somewhere, and can you show that all humans agree on this set of objective morals?

This is futile, im really chasing the wind here.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #94 on: October 08, 2011, 03:33:28 PM »

You are saying child rape and murder is subjective...No ? this means (dependent on personal interpretation) unless you have another definition ? so what about the person who interprets this to be fine ? does it cease to be wrong and then become right according to the personal opinion of that person ?

it's not a side insult, i'm merely reporting what has been said.

It has not been said, as you suggest.  All that has been said is that human morals are subjective, and they always have been.  You picking one thing, such as child rape. does not change that fact.  Again, where is any evidence that there exists an objective set of morals?  Is it written down somewhere, and can you show that all humans agree on this set of objective morals?

This is futile, im really chasing the wind here.

All that's being requested of you is one piece of evidence to support your claims. Why do you fail to do so? Why do you have to resort to childish tantrums and attacks? Why do you only use assumption and fallacy?

You're just being asked to provide evidence in a discussion. It should be easy for you.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #95 on: October 08, 2011, 03:42:19 PM »

You are saying child rape and murder is subjective...No ? this means (dependent on personal interpretation) unless you have another definition ? so what about the person who interprets this to be fine ? does it cease to be wrong and then become right according to the personal opinion of that person ?

it's not a side insult, i'm merely reporting what has been said.

It has not been said, as you suggest.  All that has been said is that human morals are subjective, and they always have been.  You picking one thing, such as child rape. does not change that fact.  Again, where is any evidence that there exists an objective set of morals?  Is it written down somewhere, and can you show that all humans agree on this set of objective morals?

This is futile, im really chasing the wind here.

All that's being requested of you is one piece of evidence to support your claims. Why do you fail to do so? Why do you have to resort to childish tantrums and attacks? Why do you only use assumption and fallacy?

You're just being asked to provide evidence in a discussion. It should be easy for you.

The bolded above shows he doesn't know what objective means. But whats the point really ? all you have to do is say "prove it" over and over again and people will eventually go away frustrated.

well.....job done.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #96 on: October 08, 2011, 03:45:45 PM »
The bolded above shows he doesn't know what objective means. But whats the point really ? all you have to do is say "prove it" over and over again and people will eventually go away frustrated.

well.....job done.

Or they could actually provide the proof. Instead of behaving like petulant children. Unfortunately childishness seems to be the only thing which you have to bring to the table in this matter.

Can you actually justify one single thing that you've said so far? What about your claim of god being good? I'm still waiting for that justification. Actually I'm stil waiting to hear your definition of good so that we can see how it applies to what I quoted.

I'm sure I'll be blown away by it's insight and intellectual depth.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 03:48:15 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7277
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #97 on: October 08, 2011, 04:05:18 PM »
Again LC, where are these objective morals?  What are they? Are they written down somewhere?  Show me the list of objective morals.  I can then start to get on board with you.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #98 on: October 08, 2011, 04:16:59 PM »
 L-Chaim, while I'm glad you liked my joke, you could still reply to the rest of my post.

I said: So when you claim that "Objective moral values exist and are self evident", you're really saying that "My moral system is the correct system". Others mileage may vary.

Alzael and Jetson and others have pointed out the same thing; you're claiming that your moral truths ("Killing strangers for no reason is wrong") are objective; we're saying that they're subjective (and we give counter-examples), and your response (in the debate as well) is the logical fallacy of Argument from Personal Incredulity. You also seem to be implying that we think that killing strangers for no reason is right; we don't, we assert that some people think (or have thought) so.

And, Alzael and I are still waiting for some response to our points about the nature of God. We've asked about four times now:

You say that killing innocent babies is wrong; yet God, in the Flood, killed innocent babies. And at Jericho he ordered the killing of babies. And killing people at random? God killed all the first-born in Egypt as part of his preparation for the Exodus. No good reason for it (in fact he set it up by hardening Pharaoh's heart). Why not the second-born? Or the left-handed? Or those with naturally curly hair?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 04:23:23 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #99 on: October 08, 2011, 04:38:01 PM »
L-Chaim,

One way to look at this would be to assume that morality is either objective or subjective, and then predict what one would expect to see in the world, in each case.

If morallity is subjective, one would expect to see a huge variety of ethical systems, as manifested in different legal or religious systems and in different individuals, both in the present and historically,

If morality is objective, one would expect to see one system, the same in every country and culture throughout history, and everybody in total agreement as to what is right and what is wrong on a personal level.

Which do we see, L-Chaim?

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #100 on: October 08, 2011, 04:41:12 PM »
The bolded above shows he doesn't know what objective means. But whats the point really ? all you have to do is say "prove it" over and over again and people will eventually go away frustrated.

well.....job done.

It's nobody's fault but your own if you can't prove the claims you are making. Sorry if you can't live up to that expectation.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1340
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #101 on: October 08, 2011, 05:14:21 PM »
L-Chaim,

I think I'd put it like this.  I think that you, me and everyone else agrees that raping children is wrong.  I think you, me and everyone else would also agree that people that have raped children were wrong to do it, no matter how their culture would have viewed it.  (I'm far less certain on this point what everyone else thinks.  But that's my view anyway). 

Where you and curiousgirl seem to disagree is what we should take away from this phenomena.  You seem to think that the fact that I would condemn the rape of a child as something that is wrong or evil no matter the context as somehow an indication that I am appealing to some moral truth that exists in reality.  She would disagree.  It only shows that I have an opinion on the matter.  The point of bringing in counter examples was to demonstrate that people have followed and do follow a widely divergent set of moral rules.  As such, she seems to find morality to be something that's perhaps more akin to custom than mathematics.  (That's how I read her anyway)

To be sure, I'm not sure that wild deviations from some supposedly objective morality would mitigate against the possibility of its being objective any more than the wild deviations from logic that we observe and probably even fall victim to mitigate against the possibility of its being objective.  In fact, widely divergent views are in keeping with the Biblical view that man is fallen and given to sin.  And the Bible itself depicts whole cultures as having been overrun with all manner of sin.

To sum up, I don't think that you've so much shown that objective moral rules exist as much as you've shown that people have strong opinions on morality. 

Furthermore, I think that the case for an objective morality grounded in the Biblical god, at least in the way that you, Bill Craig and others formulate it is complicated by the fact that God sometimes commands and commits acts that would be considered heinous if ordered or committed by a person.  As such, it's not exactly right to say that a given action is simply wrong and is always wrong as a matter of objective fact because it would appear that God often has the prerogative to ask you to perform that otherwise wrong action.  For example, in my debate with MathisCool he bit the bullet and admitted outright that the killing of men, women and children depicted in Numbers and elsewhere was good because it was commanded by God.

Hope that helps.


Peace and Love
Nah son...

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #102 on: October 08, 2011, 07:39:46 PM »
Looking for a bride and cannot find one in your village? Go out to another village and kidnap, rape, then force her to be your wife against her will. God even commands it. Who cares since women are just property anyways? So therefore it must be objectively good!

Or....

We as a society have evolved to the point that we now view this as morally abhorent. That was then, this is now. (Subjective)
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 07:43:05 PM by TruthSeeker »

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #103 on: October 09, 2011, 12:31:59 AM »
L-Chaim,

I think I'd put it like this.  I think that you, me and everyone else agrees that raping children is wrong.  I think you, me and everyone else would also agree that people that have raped children were wrong to do it, no matter how their culture would have viewed it.  (I'm far less certain on this point what everyone else thinks.  But that's my view anyway). 

....and this is the essence, we "you, me and everyone" agree, only because this is the evolved moral awareness that we have currently reached.

Place any, or all of us, back in those hellish days where the apparently unthinkable, and the apparently unspeakable was the accepted norm, and there is an overwhelming likelyhood that we would only evidence the exact same morality of the status quo of the time.

To say otherwise (and I am not saying you are Timo, I have just segued in on your comment ) is to presume too much.

Most people, most of the time, are socially moral, otherwise society could just not exist.

For periods of time to be shown, wherein (from our current perspective) unspeakable behaviour was the accepted norm, indicates that the "most of the people >who< most of the time are socially moral" accepted as normal, a moral standard that we today condemn from our "evolved" standpoint.

We have seen the evolution of a moral perspective happen within our lifetimes. Green politics for instance at it's idealogical purest is a morality based event (and I have no intention of discussing the real politic distortion of the Greens).  And no doubt sometime in the probably not too distant future, the  morality of the peoples of the past century are going to be harshly judged in much the same way as we judge the child killers and rapists of yesteryear.

And for L-Ch to claim that his morality is such that he would've condemned that past behaviour if he'd been there, (while yet again taking another sly swipe at all atheists) shows just two things

1. lacks the ability to argue honestly and defend his position
2. he lacks the morality to be honest about his lack of ability......


.............predictable.
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #104 on: October 09, 2011, 09:36:19 AM »
<snip>

/emote facepalm

He won't accept that for objective morality to exist, it has to be the same across every cultural barrier and every time period. With curiousgirl showing quite plainly this is not the case. Even pointing out that Abram was willing to do something we today in the part of the world I live in to be morally abhorent.

Did Abram consider killing Isaac ok, according to his morals? or was he "just following orders," meaning he had no moral compass?

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #105 on: October 09, 2011, 10:08:26 AM »
I don't know how two people can bugger up an argument so badly.   :P  Morals are derived like this:

One person or dog wants more power; so slaughters his way to the top of the pack. When he gets to the top of the pack, he decrees that nobody else can do what he did; so murder is wrong, and he will enforce it by murdering anyone who tries it. Then he kills a few more people and steals everybody else's stuff, then makes a law that you cannot steal your stuff back from him, or he will kill you. People and other dogs then complain that he has made one law for himself, and one for them. He says that's OK. People and dogs then lead a revolt and kill him, because they want their stuff back. They then address whether killing him was against his law, but come to the conclusion that killing him was OK, because they didn't like him anyway, and he's now not in charge.

Another person or dog obtains a few girlfriends to reproduce with and have fun with. Someone else comes along and inseminates them behind his back. Eventually he finds out that they were not his children, and is miffed that his genes were not propagated, and he wasted all that time raising them, so he finds the younger male and either kills him, or hounds him out of the pack, where he then dies; then perhaps even slaughters the children and wife. (I must point out that this law still stands in the Bible and Quran. Christians and Muslims have not moved beyond this pack animal thinking.)

Laws against indiscriminate murder appear in human civilization after rich people gain assets to protect. Typically they feel a loss when some other person pillages their house, or rapes their children and women, because it's a significant survival setback. Laws against murder in tribes are instigated, because people need the tribe to not diminish in numbers, or they fear it happening to themselves. In "civilization", the murdering of slaves and underclasses is not a problem. Pack animals tend not to murder each other, because they need the numbers to attack neighbouring packs and hunt animals. In humans and animals, it's OK to kill neighbouring tribes to gain wealth, increase territory or steal captive human resources - women and slaves. (This principle stands in the Quran and Bible.)

The first laws are by necessity against murder and theft of/from the aristocracy. The aristocrats then create laws to steal off the lower classes and enslave them. In a sense, "morality" is necessary to sustain a gradient of immorality. It is from this that we can derive indignation, and a sense of righteousness to attack others.

We don't have "morals", but every mammal (after interaction with others) acquires a sense of what is "fair", even if it's entirely one-sided and hypocritical. Children are always saying that someone else "hit first". This is the prime "moral" : you are morally obliged to retaliate and demand tit for tat, or worse. (This is a Quranic and Biblical principle. Eye for eye. ) You are morally obliged to protect your assets, or it affects your reproduction. The confusion on this issue still reigns. How many would defend their home with a gun, and feel no real guilt about killing an intruder?

If you want to argue that morals come from God, then the retaliation moral is what truly comes from God or evolution. The next moral from God or evolution is to kill anyone who comes near your women. Trez noble. You will notice that the Bible is full of death sentences and retribution, whilst condemning murder. This is morality.

Human "morals" are derived from the basest selfish animal behavior, hypocrisy and "game theory"; and we can see most of it mirrored in wolves, as they piss on trees.

The idea that morality comes from God, is so arse-about. To prove that morals come from God, you have to prove that they cannot be derived from game theory and evolutionary survival and philosophy. Whatever is left over, comes from external sources.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #106 on: October 09, 2011, 10:26:21 AM »
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20243.msg447043.html#msg447043

In my Morality Comes from Dogs post, I was trying to argue that there is a cross cultural objective morality, and it's actually way superior to what is written in the Bible. The Bible is merely a system to brutally enforce a lowest-common-denominator morality for tribal-reproductive survival. It seems that the "morality comes from God argument" comes from people who think that the morality of the Bible is something awesome that God gave us. They think it's awesome, because it's hard to live by. However, any set of [crap] rules are hard to live by. The more crapper they are, the harder they are to live by.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #107 on: October 09, 2011, 10:57:39 AM »
L-Chaim, in the debate:
Quote
five pieces of evidence that objective moral values exist. (taken from Shenvi)
In Shenvi's article, (here), he says:
Quote
I fully admit that I will not prove the premise that objective moral values exist.
... and he explains why he won't (my bold):
Quote
However, it is extremely important for readers --especially skeptical readers-- to keep in mind that I am attempting to defend a basic premise (actually, premise 2 of the Moral Argument for God's existence). A good, basic premise cannot be deduced from a logical argument because, if it could, the premises of this first argument would serve as the actual premises in the subsequent argument. In other words, we should not demand that someone prove a premise to be true; we can only ask them to provide reasons that it is true
Does that make sense to anyone, that premises shouldn't be verified? I've never heard of such a claim, nullifying as it does the conclusions of all syllogisms (which depend on the truth of their premises for their validity).


To be fair to L-Chaim, in his opening statement he also says that his argument for the existence of God "will not be based on the Cartesian model for proof (beyond a shadow of a doubt) rather it will be an inference to the best explanation". People seem to have missed that (I know I did).

Yet CuriousGirl continues to ask him for proof, when he's already said he can't/won't provide it.

 
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 12:20:18 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7277
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #108 on: October 09, 2011, 11:28:31 AM »
So, he gets to claim something as absolute, without proof?  Then where, exactly, is the debate?  I read his opening premise and thought it was quite a pathetic attempt at gaining a position that needed no supporting facts or evidence, even if inferences are provided.

No matter though, as the entire argument fails simply because the claim is demonstrably false, based on well documented human history, as well as current cultures and societies that have clearly demonstrated that morals across the board are subjective, regardless of how much they may match up across cultures.


Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #109 on: October 09, 2011, 12:34:22 PM »
Quote
So, he gets to claim something as absolute, without proof?

No, they (Shenvi and L-Chaim) are claiming that their premise is more likely to be true than not, based on their evidence and logic. Shenvi:
Quote
I also agree that there are ways to avoid the weight of each of the points I will present below. However, the question is not whether the evidence in support of the premise can be avoided, but whether there exists better evidence to deny the premise.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 12:37:04 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #110 on: October 09, 2011, 12:49:22 PM »
In case L-Chaim is still reading this thread, here's a simplified example of why morality is subjective.  We started out with tribes who had no problems slaughtering other tribes wholesale, if they had something the first tribe wanted or if they were threatening the first tribe in some way.  Then, as those tribes developed culturally, they discovered that they didn't have to simply kill all the members of other tribes; instead, they could defeat them and then extort concessions from them, as well as taking slaves from other tribes.  It also took less effort to subdue other tribes than it did to simply kill them, and was less of a risk of weakening the first tribe (not to mention that the subdued tribes could add to the first tribe's strength with additional warriors).  Genocide was a less acceptable option, but it was still an option.

After more development, they discovered that they didn't have to fight these other tribes at all; they could trade something they had an excess of for something the other tribe needed, and get what they needed in return.  It required considerably less effort than actively going out and fighting the other tribes and then having to keep them down, so warfare was a less acceptable option.  And genocide became substantially less attractive as a result, because instead of having only two choices, you had three, and genocide was the least of the three.

That's the reason why morality is subjective, because morality is a progression of giving more options than were previously available.  If an option is the only one available, then nobody will worry about whether it's right or wrong.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #111 on: October 09, 2011, 03:26:20 PM »

*Facepalm* So what are you trying to imply? That they were unhappy and they forced themselves to do something they thought was wrong? LC, I need proof.

<snip>

*Facepalm* ERROR: Failure to communicate…
LC, I am acting like there are subjective moral values. You are failing to understand that.

Wow. Multiple facepalms. I've gotten so used to L-C's ummm... stuff, that once my face enters my palm, it stays till I finish reading his post. Since I learned by now, this is inevetible.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #112 on: October 09, 2011, 08:07:23 PM »
So, he gets to claim something as absolute, without proof?  Then where, exactly, is the debate?  I read his opening premise and thought it was quite a pathetic attempt at gaining a position that needed no supporting facts or evidence, even if inferences are provided.


It's actually true. There are cross-cultural objective moral standards. The fallacy is pretending that they come directly from God, rather than from game theory, consciousness and survival.

With consciousness comes pain and empathy. In non-psychopathic persons (along with direct experience), this creates the golden rule. A person who has been tortured will be the first to tell everyone that torture is bad. People who haven't been tortured pick up on that, because of their conscious empathy. By a combination of experiencing this yourself and information from those who have experienced it, people slowly adjust their rules. Whether they can get the ruling classes to instigate the rules, as societal laws is another matter, because tribes may have to exploit other peoples in order to survive.

The next instinctive derivational force is that humans, cross culturally, all want to have children and build a mini-kingdom of assets. So, you need rules that protect that "right".

You could argue that consciousness comes from God, and the instinct to survive comes from God, but the Christian need to prove that morals come from God, is caused by the Bible being full of crappy morals that they think are good. If L-C wants to argue the existence of God, he should start from consciousness.

There is a big distinction between the morals that society actually follows and the morals that they think they should be following. For example, Christians think they should throw away their money, but they never do. By Christian logic, theft should be legal. The distinction is between ideals and practicality. Christianity is full of ideals that nobody can implement. The Old Testament is full of practical tribal brutality.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7277
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #113 on: October 09, 2011, 08:11:40 PM »
So, he gets to claim something as absolute, without proof?  Then where, exactly, is the debate?  I read his opening premise and thought it was quite a pathetic attempt at gaining a position that needed no supporting facts or evidence, even if inferences are provided.


It's actually true. There are cross-cultural objective moral standards.


Where are they?  What are they?  And to what cultures do they belong?

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #114 on: October 09, 2011, 08:47:45 PM »

Where are they?  What are they?  And to what cultures do they belong?

You are doing it, too. IMHO, it's the wrong approach. To win this argument, you have to show that morals can be derived, which is easy. Any attempts to show intercultural variations between sets of morals is like trying to remove a tree by pruning it. To remove the tree, you pull it up by its roots. L-C has to show that morals cannot be derived, which is a tall order. So far, the argument is just getting more indignant, and L-C will not be convinced he has lost, by the end of it.

Animals like Bower Birds collect bits of blue stuff to feather their nests. A bower bird gets annoyed when another bower bird comes a long and pinches its blue stuff. It's theft! Penguins do it with rocks to build nests. Animals have a sense of theft; so do we. The laws against theft can be derived from survival imperatives and resource availability. ... Note however, that the morality of God does not recognize theft, since sophisticated moralizers renounce personal possessions.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The discussion thread
« Reply #115 on: October 09, 2011, 09:01:32 PM »
Samuel 6:19 And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great laughter.

That's how I read it anyway.

Hey, real quick off topic...I am trying to help a friend with material for a discussion in her Philosophy of Discussion class and I am looking for a link on this forum with all the bible versus dealing with Gods laws and how violators are to be  punished. She is wanting to bring to the discussion an opposing view to Gods existence because everybody in the class pretty much agrees that God exists, so the "discussion" is a little one sided at the moment. I suggested she bring up the objective vs. subjective morality topic. I have seen several of these lists before but am out of time to go digging for them at the moment. I have already sent her links to this discussion thread and the debate thread. Thanks in advance and a +Darwin to the first one to provide me with a good link or list.

« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 09:03:34 PM by jaybwell32 »
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.