MrAnony1:

You have made a category error. An AK47 is not a moral being. An AK47 can be good or bad in the mechanistic sense of how well it functions according to it's design. Assigning a morals to something that has nothing to do with morality in the hope of scoring a point is ignorant at best and dubious at worst.

You missed the main point. I wasn't saying the AK47 is a moral being( because it clearly isn't), rather the analogy of the AK47 helps in explaining that the intent of design often carries a moral responsibility on its own! You act like the intent has no moral responsibility at all.

No it does not. "one is saved by repenting from their sins, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ (who forgives and cleanses us from sin), forsaking sin and living righteously (with the help of the Holy Spirit)."

We are likely to fall back into a vicious circle of counter argument upon argument. You have accepted the following:

1. Christians will always sin as a result of their human nature.

2. Christians need repentance to return to status quo.

So I will always encounter "true" Christians who preach righteousness, faith and goodwill and then turn round act unChristlike and sinfully and probably turn round again and see k for forgiveness.

MrAnony1:

I don't see why not. Or can you think of anything that we ought to do that is not good?

What is it that we ought to do? I can't think of anything that "we ought" to do! I can think of things that I ought to do, but I doubt the things I ought to do are congruent with the ones you ought to do <---classic case of subjectivity!

MrAnony1:

I see, so you asked:
"Can you prove that what you presume to be the will and purpose of the creator is, indeed, the will and purpose of the creator?"
The level of proof you are requesting is unrealistic. It is as about as unrealistic as asking
"Can you prove that what you presume to be the intents of Mr Anony are actually the intents of Mr Anony" and your proof must be foolproof.
I do hope that you realize that whether or not you are able to do this, it does not change the fact that Anony does indeed have intents driving what you believe to be his comment.

Of course, as far as my cognition allows, I can infer that Mr Anony is a sentient being with intents. Nevertheless, the point you have made above is precisely why I don't go about pretending presuming to know Mr Anony's intents. If I do so, I better damn-well be able to prove my claim! You claim you know your creator has good intents, but you have yet to show that this creator of yours has intents let alone that they are good.

MrAnony1:


You are still equivocating between purpose in the sense that one intends to do something and purpose in the sense that one ought to do something.

Allow me to ask my question in a different way. Are we, as humans, capable of giving ourselves purpose? If so, can we say that purpose can be subjective, without the need to resort to a designer?

MrAnony1:

Wrong. You cannot know any facts based on your subjective opinions other than the fact that you have a subjective opinion about facts. At best, you think that certain actions are good based on consequences which you have also subjectively decided are good. That is circular reasoning my friend.

Don't be ridiculous. GOOD is defined as something desirable. Pleasure is a feeling of satisfaction, and satisfaction is desirable by me, so by definition, my pleasures, irrespective of how they differ from yours, are good (to me). I also acknowledge that some goods are more universal than others: The minimisation of pain is an example. Yes, this is a subjective phenomenology in the sense that I'm subjecting the response of others to mine. But so far, no one has tried to kill me for making them happy, so I can say my assumption, however subjective, is a safe bet.

MrAnony1:

Now what you have said here is true but then the fact that we know that animals despise pain does not impose a moral obligation upon us to reduce it.

Like pleasure, empathy is also a feeling, so while there is no "objective" moral obligation to reduce the pain, the more empathetic you are towards their pain, the more obliged you feel to reduce it. There is nothing objective about empathy. It is more a reflection of how you understand others' feelings than how they actually feel. There is also this primal sense of reciprocity. We obviously do not want others to inflict pain on us, so we avoid inflicting pain on others. While this doesn't necessarily stop others from inflicting pain on you, there is a mutual fear of reciprocation which serves as a deterrent. This mutual fear is the closest thing to objectivity that we've got, but it is amoral.

MrAnony1:

To do make the jump you are trying to make, you must assume that there is an objective moral principle that requires that reducing pain ought to be done and inflicting pain ought not to be done. You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is"

No, you don't have to assume there is an objective moral principle. Self-gratification is sufficient to make the leap. I can claim that making other animals happy increases my own happiness; I desire happiness, therefore, I should make other animals happy. This is a completely subjective thought process.

MrAnony1:

I see, would it be fair to say based on what you have said here that we don't know if slavery for instance is right or wrong because just as it was "overturned", it could be overturned tomorrow to become right? Also the slavers were not doing anything wrong because at the time it was believed to be right by most people?

There is no 'we', but I certainly know that slavery is wrong because, again, my definition of good (i.e. maximising pleasure and minimising pain) precludes me from accepting it as right. This disposition is now more universal than it used to be, so it follows that slavery has been universally abolished. If slavery is reestablished tomorrow, it would be because it is universally accepted as right. I doubt that tomorrow, I'll change my definition of good to a less compelling one (by means of logical deduction), so it would still be wrong to me, but that wouldn't matter much because I'll be in the minority. What would matter is that slavery would be right to the majority. Some bible literalists might even fancy the temptation to qualify it as objectively moral.

I find it a very curious affair that you mentioned slavery. Answer me this: Given all those slavery glorifying verses in the Bible, which I presume to be your source of "objective" morality, would you say the practice of slavery is objectively moral?

MrAnony1:

Again, I hope you do realize that you seem to be saying that what the majority believe to be right is right.

Far from. I'm saying what the majority believes to be right is what carries the day, regardless of what my moral leanings are. Some universal "rights" (e.g. slavery) have been replaced with new, more appealing (reasonable) standards, while others, in spite of being reasonable, (e.g. acceptance of homosexuality) have yet to attain universality. It wouldn't matter if I say homosexuality (acceptance of) is objectively or subjectively right, most Nigerians will still tell me I'm wrong.

MrAnony1:

I think it is this sentence that expresses your point most clearly. A point I very much disagree with at a fundamental level because if it is true, then there is no such thing as right or wrong in any real sense of the words.

Yes, there is no such thing as "objective" right or wrong because the real sense of both words is the sense you make of them, so naturally, I suspect my conception of right and wrong is very much different than yours.

MrAnony1:

What this means for you is that you cannot really condemn any actions as wrong because you cannot authoritatively do that based on what you believe to be false.

I can condemn actions as wrong and give reasons for my condemnation. Accepting my reasoning is your prerogative. Many people accept the authority of reasoning over all other criteria, and many don't, so I cannot "authoritatively" force those that don't to accept reasoning.

MrAnony1:

At best what you can say is "I don't like slavery" for instance. What you can never say is that "slavery is wrong"

You're wrong. I can do better: I can say "Slavery is wrong for {insert logical reason why it is wrong}" without recourse to any presumed objectivity. What wouldn't make sense would be to say "Slavery is wrong because it is objectively wrong"

OlaAjia:

What is it that we ought to do? I can't think of anything that "we ought" to do! I can think of things that I ought to do, but I doubt the things I ought to do are congruent with the ones you ought to do <---classic case of subjectivity!

I see

Of course, as far as my cognition allows, I can infer that Mr Anony is a sentient being with intents. Nevertheless, the point you have made above is precisely why I don't go about pretending presuming to know Mr Anony's intents. If I do so, I better damn-well be able to prove my claim! You claim you know your creator has good intents, but you have yet to show that this creator of yours has intents let alone that they are good.

This is a classical example of requiring an irrational amount of proof in order to accept a point. It is unreasonable. Your reply shows exactly the problem with the level of proof you are requiring. That was why I asked you what level of proof would satisfy you. You have in the same vein yet to show that Anony is a being let alone a sentient one that has intents. All you have done is to claim that you can infer it which is the same thing as saying "Anony has intents because I think Anony has intents" I doubt you would take that as an acceptable level of proof.

Now consider the following argument,

"If Anony has intents then his arrangement of alphabets are such that his words have a meaning and communicate something. i.e his words have an objective meaning which you will be wrong to give it another meaning.

If Anony has no intents then his arrangement of alphabets are such that his words have no meaning, therefore does not communicate anything therefore you are free to subjectively choose what it means to you since there is no right or wrong way to read it"

The above is quite analogous to the argument I've made for objective morality.

Now I'll ask you the sort of question you asked me. "Can you prove that what you think Anony means by what he said is actually what he means by what he said?" . . .and your proof must be foolproof.

Now not only is this an unrealistic expectation, it also irrelevant because even if you fail to prove that what you think Anony means is actually what he means, it won't in any way show that Anony's doesn't mean something by his words.

Allow me to ask my question in a different way. Are we, as humans, capable of giving ourselves purpose? If so, can we say that purpose can be subjective, without the need to resort to a designer?

The purpose we give ourselves is not in the same sense as the purpose which we are given. If we give ourselves purpose, the the resulting actions are not things we ought to do but things we want to do. They do not lay upon us any obligations such that doing them will be right and not doing them will be wrong.

Don't be ridiculous. GOOD is defined as something desirable. Pleasure is a feeling of satisfaction, and satisfaction is desirable by me, so by definition, my pleasures, irrespective of how they differ from yours, are good (to me).

In other words good has no objective meaning. If a serial killer derives pleasure killing, then it is good (for him) and if you derive pleasure from giving life it is also good (for you). When you have two diammetrically opposite things represented by the same word, you have effectively rendered the word meaningless.

I also acknowledge that some goods are more universal than others: The minimisation of pain is an example. Yes, this is a subjective phenomenology in the sense that I'm subjecting the response of others to mine.

So you admit that your good has no objective meaning.

But so far, no one has tried to kill me for making them happy, so I can say my assumption, however subjective, is a safe bet.

I hope you do realize that this means nothing especially since what makes one man happy can be the exact opposite of what makes another man happy.

Like pleasure, empathy is also a feeling, so while there is no "objective" moral obligation to reduce the pain, the more empathetic you are towards their pain, the more obliged you feel to reduce it. There is nothing objective about empathy. It is more a reflection of how you understand others' feelings than how they actually feel. There is also this primal sense of reciprocity. We obviously do not want others to inflict pain on us, so we avoid inflicting pain on others. While this doesn't necessarily stop others from inflicting pain on you, there is a mutual fear of reciprocation which serves as a deterrent. This mutual fear is the closest thing to objectivity that we've got, but it is amoral.

So in other words you are saying that we actually live in an amoral world but we subjectively experience the illusion of morality. Right?

No, you don't have to assume there is an objective moral principle. Self-gratification is sufficient to make the leap. I can claim that making other animals happy increases my own happiness; I desire happiness, therefore, I should make other animals happy. This is a completely subjective thought process.

And someone else can say that inflicting pain on other animals increases his happiness, he desires happiness therefore he should torture other animals. You have no way of saying which of you is right and which one is wrong. All you can say is that you disagree with the torturer.

The problem with your worldview is that you have denied the possibility of truth existing independent of your subjective mind and therefore you cannot possibly be right.

There is no 'we', but I certainly know that slavery is wrong because, again, my definition of good (i.e. maximising pleasure and minimising pain) precludes me from accepting it as right.

No sir, you do not "certainly know" that slavery is wrong because to certainly know something, the said thing must be objectively true and independent of your subjectivity.

Unless you are saying that your principle is an objective true one, it holds no more value than the man who thinks that slavery is right for the exact opposite reason. he too "certainly knows" that slavery is right.

I hope you know what the law of non-contradiction is. Both of you cannot possibly be right.

I find it a very curious affair that you mentioned slavery. Answer me this: Given all those slavery glorifying verses in the Bible, which I presume to be your source of "objective" morality, would you say the practice of slavery is objectively moral?

You would need to provide these slavery glorifying verses that you talk about first.

Far from. I'm saying what the majority believes to be right is what carries the day,

I see, so you believe that it is possible for majority to be wrong in what they believe since obviously, "carrying the day" does not mean that they are right?

regardless of what my moral leanings are. Some universal "rights" (e.g. slavery) have been replaced with new, more appealing (reasonable) standards

You see, this is the problem with your worldview. The moment you deny objective moral truth, I don't know what you could possibly mean by "more appealing" or "reasonable". are these standards more appealing in an objective sense or just to you?
Are they reasonable because they are in line with reality, rational, logical etc? how can something be reasonable if it is impossible for it to be true?
Once you deny the objective truth of a thing, you destroy the foundation upon which you can talk about it's rationality.

Yes, there is no such thing as "objective" right or wrong because the real sense of both words is the sense you make of them, so naturally, I suspect my conception of right and wrong is very much different than yours.

If there is no such thing as objective right or wrong, It cannot possibly be true that any thing is right or wrong because the very nature of truth is objectivity.

I can condemn actions as wrong and give reasons for my condemnation. Accepting my reasoning is your prerogative. Many people accept the authority of reasoning over all other criteria, and many don't, so I cannot "authoritatively" force those that don't to accept reasoning

The authority I was talking about is one that depends on your position being true. You cannot give any valid reasons why you condemn actions because you have denied the very possibility that any actions are actually condemnable.

You're wrong....

Lolololol....Am I objectively wrong or is it merely you opinion speaking here?

.....I can do better: I can say "Slavery is wrong for {insert logical reason why it is wrong}" without recourse to any presumed objectivity.

I would actually like to see you attempt this.

You can start with "Slavery is not objectively wrong but . . . ."

What wouldn't make sense would be to say "Slavery is wrong because it is objectively wrong"

Actually, that's exactly what would make sense.

Kay17:

You missed the main point. I wasn't saying the AK47 is a moral being( because it clearly isn't), rather the analogy of the AK47 helps in explaining that the intent of design often carries a moral responsibility on its own! You act like the intent has no moral responsibility at all.

I really don't see how your analogy helped in explaining what you claim it helped explain. Could you expand on it a bit more?

1. Christians will always sin as a result of their human nature.

Where did I accept this?

2. Christians need repentance to return to status quo.

Where did I accept this?

MrAnony1:

This is a classical example of requiring an irrational amount of proof in order to accept a point. It is unreasonable. Your reply shows exactly the problem with the level of proof you are requiring. That was why I asked you what level of proof would satisfy you. You have in the same vein yet to show that Anony is a being let alone a sentient one that has intents. All you have done is say that "based on your cognition...." which is the same thing as saying "I think that..." I doubt you would take that as an acceptable level of proof.

My reply shows that I'm reasonable enough not to speculate on something I'm not sure about, while pretending to know!

As for whether Mr. Anony is a sentient being or not, evidence of our intelligible conversation can be accessed from anywhere in the world by whosoever doubts Anony's existence. Nevertheless, if Mr. Anony wishes to prove his nonexistence to the world, he is very well entitled to do so without his attempt having the remotest of impacts on my continued existence. I certainly don't feel like my life depends on Anony's existence.

MrAnony1:

The purpose we give ourselves is not in the same sense as the purpose which we are given. If we give ourselves purpose, the the resulting actions are not things we ought to do but things we want to do. They do not lay upon us any obligations such that doing them will be right and not doing them will be wrong.

Which brings me back to my initial question: What is this purpose which we are given? Can you give a direct answer?

MrAnony1:

In other words good has no objective meaning. If a serial killer derives pleasure killing, then it is good (for him) and if you derive pleasure from giving life it is also good (for you). When you have two diammetrically opposite things represented by the same word, you have effectively rendered the word meaningless.

Indeed, if a serial killer derives pleasure in killing, it is good for him. Nevertheless, as the actions of the serial killer causes pain to others, the serial killer is wrong by my standard (not his). Thankfully, my standard is universal, so it takes preponderance. And yes, the meaning of good is as diverse as the number of people in existence, so it has no objective meaning. I thought you would have inferred that from its definition: What is so objective about "Something desirable"?!

MrAnony1:

So you admit that your good has no objective meaning.

Yes. In how many sentences do you want me to spell it out?

MrAnony1:

I hope you do realize that this means nothing especially since what makes one man happy can be the exact opposite of what makes another man happy.

Thankfully, most humans can talk, and can tell me what makes them happy and what doesn't. I don't need to use much brain juice for that one.

MrAnony1:

So in other words you are saying that we actually live in an amoral world but we subjectively experience the illusion of morality. Right?

Morality is a subjective reality. Objective morality on the other hand, is an illusion.

MrAnony1:

And someone else can say that inflicting pain on other animals increases his happiness, he desires happiness therefore he should torture other animals. You have no way of saying which of you is right and which one is wrong. All you can say is that you disagree with the torturer.

The problem with your worldview is that you have denied the possibility of truth existing independent of your subjective mind and therefore you cannot possibly be right.

What difference would it make if I said to an animal torturer that "I disagree with your actions" as opposed to "You're wrong"? Either way, if the person believes they are right, they'll still say "that's your opinion". The mere fact that we're having this discussion is proof in and of itself that morality is subjective. Of course I will not be right to someone who doesn't subscribe to my standard, but I certainly will be right to those who do. The fact that my version of morality has many supporters doesn't make it objective, it just makes it more universal. I'm beginning to think we night not even agree on the definition of OBJECTIVE

MrAnony1:

No sir, you do not "certainly know" that slavery is wrong because to certainly know something, the said thing must be objectively true and independent of your subjectivity.
Unless you are saying that your principle is an objective true one, it holds no more value than the man who thinks that slavery is right for the exact opposite reason. he too "certainly knows" that slavery is right.
I hope you know what the law of non-contradiction is. Both of you cannot possibly be right.

Yes, why don't we engage in some semantic gymnastics while totally ignoring the fact that my certainty is hinged on my predefined notion of good. I don't claim it is objective, rather, I've come to that position using phenomenological logical reasoning.

MrAnony1:
You would need to provide these slavery glorifying verses that you talk about first.

Too many to post. Check HERE and HERE

MrAnony1:

I see, so you believe that it is possible for majority to be wrong in what they believe since obviously, "carrying the day" does not mean that they are right?

So?

MrAnony1:

You see, this is the problem with your worldview. The moment you deny objective moral truth, I don't know what you could possibly mean by "more appealing" or "reasonable". are these standards more appealing in an objective sense or just to you?
Are they reasonable because they are in line with reality, rational, logical etc? how can something be reasonable if it is impossible for it to be true?
Once you deny the objective truth of a thing, you destroy the foundation upon which you can talk about it's rationality.

I find reason appealing, and these standards are of a phenomenological nature. They are further tempered using universal logical axioms, which I accept, is subjective.
But hey, you're trying to prove me wrong, and I say your supposition, however much you wish to believe is objective, is just your opinion, hence subjective.

MrAnony1:

If there is no such thing as objective right or wrong, It cannot possibly be true that any thing is right or wrong because the very nature of truth is objectivity.

It can still be true, if truth is subjective, and it is. You may be a village palmwine tapper who believes the earth is flat. It would be a truth, but not an objective one. To the space traveller, the earth is spherical, but that doesn't make it an objective truth either. To the quantum physicist, the earth is the sum of all the potential and kinetic energy that occupies a particular region in space, and a sphere doesn't begin to describe it. To the ant, the earth might be a vast matrix of annoying rocks it has to maneuver, and that'll still a subjective truth. I hope you can now see how even things we take for granted aren't necessarily objective? Truth is a matter of perception my friend.

MrAnony1:

The authority I was talking about is one that depends on your position being true. You cannot give any valid reasons why you condemn actions because you have denied the very possibility that any actions are actually condemnable.

As profound as that may sound to you, alas, it's correct. If you don't accept my standard, no reason I give you will be valid. If I try to convince the Nigerian government that outlawing homosexuality is wrong, they'll probably reject my premise, and it will not be because my argument was logically unsound.

MrAnony1:

Lolololol....Am I objectively wrong or is it merely you opinion speaking here?

I said you were wrong (i.e. incorrect) with respect to your erroneous assertion that I cannot say to anybody that they are (morally) wrong.
It doesn't take a genius to discern that the emboldened "wrong" is not germane to our discussion on moral rights/wrongs. But no, your desperation to have me contradict myself forced you to commit the very same crime of equivocation that you have severally been quick to accuse me of.

MrAnony1:


I would actually like to see you attempt this.
You can start with "Slavery is not objectively wrong but . . . ."

Irrelevant, but I shall humour you: my reason is that slavery increases the pains of others. Pain is humanly universal, so it is a sufficient reason without recourse to objectivity.

MrAnony1:


Actually, that's exactly what would make sense.

Lol...good luck convincing people then. I'm just curious to know what/who this objective standard is, and how you came to that position?

MrAnony1:

I really don't see how your analogy helped in explaining what you claim it helped explain. Could you expand on it a bit more?

I don't think its my failing, that you don't understand the analogy. A design is predicated on an intent, and the intent subsequently has a moral value. wouldn't you find your self in a twist and a 'hairnet' by saying man is good for staying true to his designs irrespective of the intents of the design?

Where did I accept this?

Ok. let me take that as a No, that you don't think man sins because of his nature.

Where did I accept this?

I will apply same here.

MrAnony1:

Lolololol...So you are saying that the phrase "that which we ought to do" relies on the word "good" by being vague How does something rely on another by being vague? You seem very confused my friend. Let

It doesn't rely on it, according to you, that vague phrase means the same as good. It does it when you define good the way you did.

MrAnony1:

By the way, there is absolutely nothing vague about that answer. It is exactly what good is and I will illustrate it for you using your example below.

Go ahead.

MrAnony1:

Lololol...first of all my argument does not hinge on the question you asked above because it doesn't seek a definition but an example.

Furthermore, the fact that your question can easily be rephrased as "ought we to command someone to kill their child?" clearly shows that "Good is that which we ought to do.

It is similar to how "Is this shape a triangle?" can equally be expressed as "Is this a three sided closed shape?"

In fact to define good as "it is good to command someone to kill their child" is a classic example of a circular definition because the phrase "it is good to command someone to kill their child" relies on a prior knowledge of the word "good" which is being defined.

Clearly you are quite confused about what a circular definition means.

Wow. All this to avoid answering a simple and direct question? I didn't say the example defines what good is. I'm asking you if it is good to command someone to kill their child. Use whatever definition of good you want to use to answer the question starting with a yes or no. Just be ready to justify it so for clarity, I'll ask again. Is it good to command someone to kill their child?

MrAnony1:

I am quite clear that it is that which we ought to do

And what is that which we ought to do?

MrAnony1:

Well, I don't think so.

Then explain what this objective way to live is.

MrAnony1:

So you quoted this:

"Before we proceed to where the purpose comes from, I will need to know if you agree with the statement and if you don't, please explain how it is logically coherent to say that you ought to do something that has no purpose for doing it."

...and you got from it a demand to agree with me before proceeding. Well it is clear to everyone reading that you are simply lying. Anyone who can read can clearly see that I asked you whether you agree and if you don't, give logically coherent reasons why not. . . .Or maybe you read it as a compulsory demand to agree with me because you can't think of any logically coherent reason why it isn't true?

It is a demand to agree with you otherwise you will not clearly present your argument. I don't have to agree with your statement before you can expatiate on its core assumptions. This is elementary in having a discussion.

MrAnony1:

I did not say that you said that everyone needs to do a particular thing. I said that you said that I said that everyone needs to do a particular thing. . . .and I am asking you to show how you got that from the statement you were responding to.

It would be easier for you to clarify your statement by simply saying what it is that everyone needs to do.

MrAnony1:

Lolololol....I never said prove me wrong otherwise my point stands. neither did I say that there is an objective way we ought to live. I said that "if there are objectively good and bad actions, then there is an objective way in which we ought to live". Please stop putting words in my mouth.

You implied it. Otherwise you can explain your point without needing me to prove you wrong so go ahead and do that. So there isn't an objective way we ought to live? Then what is all your talk about what we ought to do and its objectivity? I've simply clarified what you've said if you disagree with my clarifications, then make your statements clearer rather than wailing and repeating your unclear statements.

MrAnony1:

How can there be a right way for humans to live if there is no purpose for human existence? How exactly does that work?

It works based on the sort of beings humans are. e.g humans don't live by drinking battery acid.

MrAnony1:

There is no point in answering this question if you keep refusing to answer whether or not it being evil to enslave humans means that we ought not to do it.

Actually that is the whole point. It will show whether or not on some level we are even using similar ideas of what it means to be good. Your fear of answering that direct and simple question shows that you're happy making vague statements and have no intention of applying your poor ideas to the real world. If you were serious, you'd have used your definition of good whatever it is to give a direct answer to a direct moral question.

MrAnony1:

Since you systematically reject everyone who claims to know, why don't you read the gospels to find out for yourself? Or aren't you the skeptical one who investigates claims? Why so close-minded when it comes to finding out what true Christianity is?

This is another example of your vagueness. You claim to know the one true religion. I directly ask you what it is and you run. I've read the Gospels and they've not helped me answer the question. You've read the Gospels and have arrived at an answer. What is your answer? Just stop panicking for a second and tell me what you claim to already know.

MrAnony1:

But drinking battery acid is not necessarily a moral problem unless you believe that all physical health issues are necessarily moral issues. Do you?

I did not say it was a moral problem. I said I can tell just as I can tell whether or not drinking battery acid helps or harms. Can you tell whether or not it helps or harms humans?

MrAnony1:

Actually I have answered all your questions. The fact that you don't like my answers doesn't make them any less answers.

No you've not answered any of my questions. I will draw up a list and see if you'll answer them in your next response.

MrAnony1:

I haven't

You can move this discussion forward by clearly saying whether or not you think "good is that which we ought to do" If you can't say whether or not you agree with the definition of what good is, then I don't know what you mean when you say for instance "is it good to enslave people". Try not to run and challenge your fears.

Once again you're asking me to agree with your entire argument that rests on that vague phrase before you'll consider anything. This is a lazy approach. What word do you find confusing in the question "Is it good to enslave people?"
Anyway, here is the list of direct questions that I'd like you to answer using your own definition of what good is. Note that whether or not I agree with your definition doesn't stop you from answering them.

1. What does the phrase "that which we ought to do" mean? Please clarify with examples.
2. Is it good to command someone to kill their child? I think this can be answered with a yes or no with a brief explanation of course.
3. What is the objective way to live?
4. Is it evil to enslave other humans?
5. Is it evil to kill people at the whims of another person?
6. Is it evil to simply torture the vast majority of humans?
7. What is the correct sect of Christianity if at all it exists?

Remember, you're free to use your own understanding of good in giving direct answers to these questions.

thehomer:

1. What does the phrase "that which we ought to do" mean? Please clarify with examples.
2. Is it good to command someone to kill their child? I think this can be answered with a yes or no with a brief explanation of course.
3. What is the objective way to live?
4. Is it evil to enslave other humans?
5. Is it evil to kill people at the whims of another person?
6. Is it evil to simply torture the vast majority of humans?
7. What is the correct sect of Christianity if at all it exists?

Lololol...this guy you are funny.

First you refuse to answer direct questions then you throw out multiple questions and claim that I am afraid of answering them. That won't work.

The questions I asked you still remain.

1. Do you agree or disagree that that which is good is that which we ought to do?
2. Do you agree or disagree that if something ought to be, then there must be a purpose for which it ought to be?

If you will not answer me, I will not answer you.

OlaAjia:

It can still be true, if truth is subjective, and it is. You may be a village palmwine tapper who believes the earth is flat. It would be a truth, but not an objective one. To the space traveller, the earth is spherical, but that doesn't make it an objective truth either. To the quantum physicist, the earth is the sum of all the potential and kinetic energy that occupies a particular region in space, and a sphere doesn't begin to describe it. To the ant, the earth might be a vast matrix of annoying rocks it has to maneuver, and that'll still a subjective truth. I hope you can now see how even things we take for granted aren't necessarily objective? Truth is a matter of perception my friend.

You see, I was going to respond to every comment of yours but when I read this I knew there would be no hope in the discussion.

You believe that truth is subjective and I believe it isn't.

I cannot see how you can possibly make any logical argument once you deny very the objective nature of truth that logic is supposed to help you establish.
He that must seek truth must first believe that truth exists and it is independent of his personal opinions. You cannot find truth if you have already decided what the truth is to you.

I sincerely hope that you would at least give this some thought if nothing else.

Kay17:
I don't think its my failing, that you don't understand the analogy. A design is predicated on an intent, and the intent subsequently has a moral value.

Not necessarily. The design of a pen, a spoon, a car e.t.c. don't necessarily have moral or immoral purposes yet every designed thing is good or bad depending on how well it functions according to the design intent.

A car is a good or bad car depending on whether or not it functions according to the intents for its maker, A man is good or bad man depending on whether or not he acts according to the intents of his maker. If man has no maker, then there is no objectively right way he ought to be or function.

wouldn't you find your self in a twist and a 'hairnet' by saying man is good for staying true to his designs irrespective of the intents of the design?

It is illogical to say that "anything is good for staying true to its design irrespective of the intents of the design". The intents of the design is exactly the same as the design.

"Airplanes are designed to fly" can be equally expressed as "the design intent for airplanes is flight"

Ok. let me take that as a No, that you don't think man sins because of his nature.

I will apply same here.

I didn't ask you to take it as a No, I asked you to show where I accepted those premises. There is a reason you thought I accepted them, I want you to point to it so that perhaps I can clarify. I don't want to believe that you made those claims for no reason.

MrAnony1:

Lololol...this guy you are funny.

First you refuse to answer direct questions then you throw out multiple questions and claim that I am afraid of answering them. That won't work.

I have answered all your questions and asked you for clarifications when necessary but you just keep trying not to clarify anything. That is not a serious approach.

MrAnony1:

The questions I asked you still remain.

1. Do you agree or disagree that that which is good is that which we ought to do?

I do not agree because I don't understand what you mean by "that which we ought to do" since you're using it in an unspecified way to mean what is good. I've asked you several times to clarify that phrase but you've refused. If you can clarify that phrase, then I'll be able to answer your question.

MrAnony1:

2. Do you agree or disagree that if something ought to be, then there must be a purpose for which it ought to be?

No I do not agree. Neutron stars ought to be but what is their purpose?

MrAnony1:

If you will not answer me, I will not answer you.

I have answered your questions directly yet again. In fact, one of them requires you to clarify your own statements but you've done your best to be as vague as possible.

Now, please answer my own questions directly using your own ideas and make the necessary clarifications.

MrAnony1:

. . . .

A car is a good or bad car depending on whether or not it functions according to the intents for its maker, A man is good or bad man depending on whether or not he acts according to the intents of his maker. If man has no maker, then there is no objectively right way he ought to be or function.

. . . .

Who is man's maker and what is this maker's intent?

MrAnony1:

Lololol...this guy you are funny.

First you refuse to answer direct questions then you throw out multiple questions and claim that I am afraid of answering them. That won't work.

The questions I asked you still remain.

1. Do you agree or disagree that that which is good is that which we ought to do?
2. Do you agree or disagree that if something ought to be, then there must be a purpose for which it ought to be?

If you will not answer me, I will not answer you.

I have to say, MrAnony, your argument is excruciatingly pathetic and bereft of meaning! You throw out a vague statement and rebuff every request to clarify your statement so that you can slither and undulate around reasonable attempts to engage with you. It's befuddling where you're headed with this.

I suggest you read up the [url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem]Wikipedia article[/url] on the "Is-ought" dilemma because vague arguments aren't arguments at all.

MrAnony1:

You see, I was going to respond to every comment of yours but when I read this I knew there would be no hope in the discussion.

You believe that truth is subjective and I believe it isn't.

I cannot see how you can possibly make any logical argument once you deny very the objective nature of truth that logic is supposed to help you establish.
He that must seek truth must first believe that truth exists and it is independent of his personal opinions. You cannot find truth if you have already decided what the truth is to you.

I sincerely hope that you would at least give this some thought if nothing else.

You really should read on objectivity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science) ). The sort of objectivity you suggest doesn't exist because observations are not independent of the tools making the observations. Humans are no more objective than other living things in their view of the universe, yet different things perceive the universe differently. In addition, humans are not any more than complex sensing devices, and like all sensing devices, we have our limitations. If you don't believe me, take one of your palms and place it on ice, place the other one on a warm surface. Now, simultaneously place both of them on a temperate surface of uniform temperature and tell me if that surface is warm or cool. The truism that is the subjectivity of truth is established such that it is the only truth that can be declared objective.

Truths do not gain credence out of a presumed objectiveness, rather, they become truths because given the specified conditions, the subjective experience will be the same for all minds. But this also assumes, validly, that human minds work in a similar manner, just the same way you are entitled to assume all thermometers work to sense temperature. Yet, even simple thermometers have local differences, say in the choice of unit, method of sensing and inevitably, instrumental/calibration errors. The way these differences affect the output are the subjective truths of the instrument. But take note of a crucial point: A wind vane is entitled to usefully exist as though there is no such thing as temperature variation, since - if we may assume that all it does is sense the direction of the wind - it cannot sense thermal variations. Human minds are no different, so I see no reason why the sensory output of the human mind should be taken as an objective truth.

Ultimately, all experiences are subjective, but some are universal and therefore, evoke consistent responses from similar types of sensing devices (e.g. the mind). I would argue that this sort of consistency, is what brings about a sense of morality, but the local variations in the sensory output is what makes morality vary from person to person, and place to place.

Now, never mind my view on the subjectivity of truth. I previously asked you if you saw slavery as objectively right or wrong. I'm curious to know if your view is consistent with the Bible's take on slavery. At your request, I have provided links to the verses. Find them here and here if you missed them. Thanks

AgentOfAllah:


I have to say, MrAnony, your arguments are excruciatingly pathetic and bereft of meaning! You throw out a vague statement and rebuff every request to clarify your statement so that you can slither and undulate around reasonable attempts to engage with you. It's befuddling where you're headed with this.

I suggest you read up the [url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem]Wikipedia article[/url] on the "Is-ought" dilemma because vague arguments aren't arguments at all.

Thank you!

OlaAjia:


You really should read on objectivity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science) ). The sort of objectivity you suggest doesn't exist because observations are not independent of the tools making the observations. Humans are no more objective than other living things in their view of the universe, yet different things perceive the universe differently. In addition, humans are not any more than complex sensing devices, and like all sensing devices, we have our limitations. If you don't believe me, take one of your palms and place it on ice, place the other one on a warm surface. Now, simultaneously place both of them on a temperate surface of uniform temperature and tell me if that surface is warm or cool. The truism that is the subjectivity of truth is established such that it is the only truth that can be declared objective.

Truths do not gain credence out of a presumed objectiveness, rather, they become truths because given the specified conditions, the subjective experience will be the same for all minds. But this also assumes, validly, that human minds work in a similar manner, just the same way you are entitled to assume all thermometers work to sense temperature. Yet, even simple thermometers have local differences, say in the choice of unit, method of sensing and inevitably, instrumental/calibration errors. The way these differences affect the output are the subjective truths of the instrument. But take note of a crucial point: A wind vane is entitled to usefully exist as though there is no such thing as temperature variation, since - if we may assume that all it does is sense the direction of the wind - it cannot sense thermal variations. Human minds are no different, so I see no reason why the sensory output of the human mind should be taken as an objective truth.

Ultimately, all experiences are subjective, but some are universal and therefore, evoke consistent responses from similar types of sensing devices (e.g. the mind). I would argue that this sort of consistency, is what brings about a sense of morality, but the local variations in the sensory output is what makes morality vary from person to person, and place to place.

Now, never mind my view on the subjectivity of truth. I previously asked you if you saw slavery as objectively right or wrong. I'm curious to know if your view is consistent with the Bible's take on slavery. At your request, I have provided links to the verses. Find them here and here if you missed them. Thanks

later on you'll claim we're mates, but I'll leave it at that

scientific truths have always been provisional, obviously, but this a whole new game entirely. and it's not like say mathematical uncertainty.

a claim like omniscience for instance, how can one verify that? how can one know something he doesn't know? ( a glaring, simple flaw some folk lalalala)

talk of dimensions so small we cannot perceive them even with today's best equipment. stuff we may never be able to perceive, eg branching universes. these examples being valid scientific hypothesis. we can't even be sure this universe isn't some (admittedly very complex, nigh on impossible) simulation

this sort of subjectivity would apply to everything, science or not. everything, gods very much included. I've always accepted that but never before seen it the way you express it here, with typical clarity

where does this leave abstract truths such as mathematical truths? deduction/induction etc. how are they classified, etc. those remain unaffected, no?

MrAnony1:

Not necessarily. The design of a pen, a spoon, a car e.t.c. don't necessarily have moral or immoral purposes yet every designed thing is good or bad depending on how well it functions according to the design intent.

A car is a good or bad car depending on whether or not it functions according to the intents for its maker, A man is good or bad man depending on whether or not he acts according to the intents of his maker. If man has no maker, then there is no objectively right way he ought to be or function.

I know what you are trying to say, but my contention is whether the intent behind the design has a moral value, and your answer in that 'not necessarily' however in the case of God's intent for man's design, was it good or bad?! and by what standard is that decided?

It is illogical to say that "anything is good for staying true to its design irrespective of the intents of the design". The intents of the design is exactly the same as the design.

"Airplanes are designed to fly" can be equally expressed as "the design intent for airplanes is flight"

Sorry I think I didn't express myself as clearly as I would have wanted. I actually meant this: "anything is good for staying true to its design irrespective of the moral standing of the intents of the design"

I didn't ask you to take it as a No, I asked you to show where I accepted those premises. There is a reason you thought I accepted them, I want you to point to it so that perhaps I can clarify. I don't want to believe that you made those claims for no reason.

I hope you do not mind if you just clarify it right here. It will stick into my memory better.

thehomer:


I have answered all your questions and asked you for clarifications when necessary but you just keep trying not to clarify anything. That is not a serious approach.

Actually, no you haven't you have only danced around them.

I do not agree because I don't understand what you mean by "that which we ought to do" since you're using it in an unspecified way to mean what is good. I've asked you several times to clarify that phrase but you've refused. If you can clarify that phrase, then I'll be able to answer your question.

Lololol...I see.

Let's take one of your questions for instance.

"2. Is it good to command someone to kill their child?"

Can this question equally be expressed as

"Is commanding someone to kill their child something we ought to do?"

If your question doesn't mean the same as the above then perhaps you mean something else by your question, which you are welcome to clarify.
On the other hand if the two questions mean the same thing then I wonder what exactly it is that you don't understand by the definition of good. You may want to explain that too.

No I do not agree. Neutron stars ought to be but what is their purpose?

Lol I see, so why do you think neutron stars ought to be?

I have answered your questions directly yet again. In fact, one of them requires you to clarify your own statements but you've done your best to be as vague as possible.

That you claim an answer is vague does not make it vague. My answer is as clear as can possibly be.

Now, please answer my own questions directly using your own ideas and make the necessary clarifications.

There are no clarifications needed. I have helped you as best as I can even using the example of your question above.

AgentOfAllah:


I have to say, MrAnony, your argument is excruciatingly pathetic and bereft of meaning!

Lololol...really?

You throw out a vague statement and rebuff every request to clarify your statement...

Which statement exactly are you referring to?

....so that you can slither and undulate around reasonable attempts to engage with you.

Lol which reasonable attempts do you speak of? The ones that deny the objective nature of truth or the ones that want to magically derive an ought from an is?

It's befuddling where you're headed with this.

It is befuddling that you are befuddled by that which is so clear

I suggest you read up the [url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem]Wikipedia article[/url] on the "Is-ought" dilemma because vague arguments aren't arguments at all.

I have read it and my arguments are not vague at all.

OlaAjia:


You really should read on objectivity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science) ).

You really should read on objectivity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) )

The sort of objectivity you suggest doesn't exist because observations are not independent of the tools making the observations.

This doesn't follow. Watching the world through red tinted lens doesn't mean that the world does not have colors independent from the color of your lens.

Humans are no more objective than other living things in their view of the universe, yet different things perceive the universe differently.

The fact that different beings perceive the universe differently does not mean that the universe doesn't have an objective existence. That's like saying that if all creatures lacked sight, then there would be no light in the universe. A very absurd proposition.

In addition, humans are not any more than complex sensing devices, and like all sensing devices, we have our limitations. If you don't believe me, take one of your palms and place it on ice, place the other one on a warm surface. Now, simultaneously place both of them on a temperate surface of uniform temperature and tell me if that surface is warm or cool.

I hope you do realize that this doesn't prove that the object doesn't have an objective temperature independent of the senses. Any more than the fact that you can't sense my face doesn't prove that I don't truly have one.

The truism that is the subjectivity of truth is established such that it is the only truth that can be declared objective.

This "truism" is necessarily false because it is self-refuting.

Truths do not gain credence out of a presumed objectiveness, rather, they become truths because given the specified conditions, the subjective experience will be the same for all minds. But this also assumes, validly, that human minds work in a similar manner, just the same way you are entitled to assume all thermometers work to sense temperature. Yet, even simple thermometers have local differences, say in the choice of unit, method of sensing and inevitably, instrumental/calibration errors. The way these differences affect the output are the subjective truths of the instrument. But take note of a crucial point: A wind vane is entitled to usefully exist as though there is no such thing as temperature variation, since - if we may assume that all it does is sense the direction of the wind - it cannot sense thermal variations. Human minds are no different, so I see no reason why the sensory output of the human mind should be taken as an objective truth.

I too see no reason why the sensory output of the human mind (or even a consensus of human minds) should be taken as objective truth but that doesn't prove (or in any way suggest) that objective truth does not exist.

Ultimately, all experiences are subjective,

True but all facts are objective

. . .but some are universal and therefore, evoke consistent responses from similar types of sensing devices (e.g. the mind).

True but this does not mean that what these devices are sensing does not exist in an objective sense.

I would argue that this sort of consistency, is what brings about a sense of morality

I would argue that this sort of consistency is what informs us of morality in much the same way as this sort of consistency informs us that a physical world external to us exists and that other minds exist apart from ours.

....but the local variations in the sensory output is what makes morality vary from person to person, and place to place.

Not necessarily. It is also possible for people to be wrong about facts because they haven't been educated.

Now, never mind my view on the subjectivity of truth.

It's not something I can ignore, Your view is very wrong.

I previously asked you if you saw slavery as objectively right or wrong. I'm curious to know if your view is consistent with the Bible's take on slavery. At your request, I have provided links to the verses. Find them here and here if you missed them. Thanks

I didn't miss them. I didn't see any verse that glorified slavery therein. In my bible I see slavery permitted, controlled, condemned but never glorified or represented as something people ought to do.

The problem though is that if we are consistent with your worldview, you can't even say that slavery is right or wrong or that I have views on it or that the bible has views on it because none of them will be true independent of you merely stating your opinion.

I am afraid you have put yourself in the very absurd position where to be consistent with your worldview, any claim you try to make will necessarily contradict your worldview. This is why I said that your worldview refutes itself and therefore cannot possibly be true. It can only be false.

From now on, I will start bringing this inconsistency to your attention at every turn

MrAnony1:

Which statement exactly are you referring to?

Good is that which we ought to do.

MrAnony1:

Lol which reasonable attempts do you speak of? The ones that deny the objective nature of truth or the ones that want to magically derive an ought from an is?

The only person that has pertinaciously insisted on transmogrifying "is" to "ought" is you.

MrAnony1:

I have read it and my arguments are not vague at all.

So, surely you read the part about "ought" being a prescription for a specified goal? Hence, if you say "good is that which we ought to do" you know it should be predicated on some purpose. Tell us what that purpose is! Do you mean it is what we ought to do: If we are to be happy, if we are to make it to heaven, if we want Sunny Ade to sing a Christmas Carroll? Either you define "that which we ought to do" or you define the goal of your prescription.

I can prove the vagueness of your statement with the following examples:
Example 1: I believe it is good not to interfere in the lives of other living things, but I also believe I ought to interfere in their lives by eating them. To me, this good=/= ought to do

Example 2: A thief mugs a woman's handbag at gunpoint. I believe it is good to stop that thief, but I'd be stupid to try and do so, so I know I ought not do it. Again good=/= ought to do.

These are real life examples. So clarify what you mean by that vague statement because even though you've spent the last few pages insisting it is self-evident, it is not at all clear what it means. Your alternative would be to acknowledge that good is an undefinable, in which case your statement is meaningless.

MrAnony1:

Actually, no you haven't you have only danced around them.

Another false assertion.

MrAnony1:

Lololol...I see.

Let's take one of your questions for instance.

"2. Is it good to command someone to kill their child?"

Can this question equally be expressed as

"Is commanding someone to kill their child something we ought to do?"

If your question doesn't mean the same as the above then perhaps you mean something else by your question, which you are welcome to clarify.
On the other hand if the two questions mean the same thing then I wonder what exactly it is that you don't understand by the definition of good. You may want to explain that too.

This is why I say you're a poor apologist. I presented you with several questions you were supposed to answer. Instead, you've decided to rephrase one of them. This means you're either confused about what you're to do or you're deliberately trying to be dishonest. You just keep getting caught.

I didn't ask you to rephrase my question, I asked you to answer it. Any one with the ability to understand communication can tell the difference between rephrasing a question and answering it. Note that you have so far failed to give a single answer to the same question asked several times already.

MrAnony1:

Lol I see, so why do you think neutron stars ought to be?

Why don't you answer my questions before going down this rabbit trail? Or did I not answer your question on your oughts and what not?

MrAnony1:

That you claim an answer is vague does not make it vague. My answer is as clear as can possibly be.

It isn't a claim that the answer is vague, it is a request for you to clarify your response by answering questions that are direct and phrased simply. I still wonder why you're afraid of answering direct questions. What is clear so far is that you're using a lot of words to say nothing about what good is. It appears that you can't even use your own idea of goodness to answer direct questions. In that case, what is the use of the idea you're failing to present?

MrAnony1:

There are no clarifications needed. I have helped you as best as I can even using the example of your question above.

Now you're refusing to clarify your vague terms when asked. I must really bring out the fear of exposure in you. If you don't think clarifications are needed, then answer the questions rather than rephrasing any of them. Give direct answers.
You've done nothing more than to rephrase a question you were asked to answer. If you're asked; does the moon come up at night? Rephrasing the question as; is the moon coming up at night something we should expect? Doesn't answer the question.

So, here again are the questions you've run from.

1. What does the phrase "that which we ought to do" mean? Please clarify with examples.
2. Is it good to command someone to kill their child? I think this can be answered with a yes or no with a brief explanation of course.
3. What is the objective way to live?
4. Is it evil to enslave other humans?
5. Is it evil to kill people at the whims of another person?
6. Is it evil to simply torture the vast majority of humans?
7. What is the correct sect of Christianity if at all it exists?

Don't rephrase them, don't ignore them, just answer them. That is the first step in clarification about what you're trying to say and showing that you're trying to have an honest conversation.

AgentOfAllah:


Good is that which we ought to do.



The only person that has pertinaciously insisted on transmogrifying "is" to "ought" is you.



So, surely you read the part about "ought" being a prescription for a specified goal? Hence, if you say "good is that which we ought to do" you know it should be predicated on some purpose. Tell us what that purpose is! Do you mean it is what we ought to do: If we are to be happy, if we are to make it to heaven, if we want Sunny Ade to sing a Christmas Carroll? Either you define "that which we ought to do" or you define the goal of your prescription.

[size=14pt]I can prove the vagueness of your statement with the following examples:
Example 1: I believe it is good not to interfere in the lives of other living things, but I also believe I ought to interfere in their lives by eating them. To me, this good=/= ought to do

Example 2: A thief mugs a woman's handbag at gunpoint. I believe it is good to stop that thief, but I'd be stupid to try and do so, so I know I ought not do it. Again good=/= ought to do.

These are real life examples. So clarify what you mean by that vague statement because even though you've spent the last few pages insisting it is self-evident, it is not at all clear what it means. Your alternative would be to acknowledge that good is an undefinable, in which case your statement is meaningless.[/size]

Anticipating Anony's dodging/twisting of the comment in big font;


OPTION ONE- PUSHING THE ARGUMENT AWAY
-"Your ought=/=good examples are irrelevant to my own ought/purpose/good statements"
-"haha you misunderstood my argument on "ought/purpose"" (ihedinobi misunderstood technique/jutsu)

OPTION TWO- OBFUSCATING AND PERAMBULATING WITH VERBOSE BIBLICAL NONSENSE
-"God's purpose is love and kindness therefore, we as children of God ought to do good"
-"God is the moral giver.....we should follow his laws"
-"Good is from God."


Option 3 will be ignoring the comment.

Just watch.....

Kay17:

I know what you are trying to say, but my contention is whether the intent behind the design has a moral value, and your answer in that 'not necessarily' however in the case of God's intent for man's design, was it good or bad?! and by what standard is that decided?

You heard and understood my answer yet you are asking me to answer as if God's intent necessarily has a moral value. What makes you think that God's intents must necessarily have a moral value?

Sorry I think I didn't express myself as clearly as I would have wanted. I actually meant this: "anything is good for staying true to its design irrespective of the moral standing of the intents of the design"

You are still assuming that all designs are necessarily moral. You will need to justify this assumption first.

I hope you do not mind if you just clarify it right here. It will stick into my memory better.

I do mind because it is important to me to ascertain that we are arguing in good faith and you are not just making up charges. I cannot clarify what I don't know if I have said or not just because you claim I said it. So please provide where I accepted what you claimed I did.

AgentOfAllah:

Good is that which we ought to do.

There is nothing vague about that answer.

The only person that has pertinaciously insisted on transmogrifying "is" to "ought" is you.

Lol...really?

So, surely you read the part about "ought" being a prescription for a specified goal? Hence, if you say "good is that which we ought to do" you know it should be predicated on some purpose.

Good so you agree with me that if something ought to be then there must be a purpose for which it ought to be.

Tell us what that purpose is! Do you mean it is what we ought to do: If we are to be happy, if we are to make it to heaven, if we want Sunny Ade to sing a Christmas Carroll? Either you define "that which we ought to do" or you define the goal of your prescription.

I don't have to tell you what the purpose is just yet. The point that follows from the above in my argument is that if there is a purpose, then there must be a mind purposing. Do you agree?

I can prove the vagueness of your statement with the following examples:

I'd love to see that.

Example 1: I believe it is good not to interfere in the lives of other living things, but I also believe I ought to interfere in their lives by eating them. To me, this good=/= ought to do

Lol, I see. So you believe that it is evil to eat other living things yet you believe that you ought to eat them. How come?

Example 2: A thief mugs a woman's handbag at gunpoint. I believe it is good to stop that thief, but I'd be stupid to try and do so, so I know I ought not do it. Again good=/= ought to do.

So you believe that it is evil to allow a person get robbed yet you believe that you ought not to help her. How come?

These are real life examples. So clarify what you mean by that vague statement because even though you've spent the last few pages insisting it is self-evident, it is not at all clear what it means. Your alternative would be to acknowledge that good is an undefinable, in which case your statement is meaningless.

Lol...the examples you gave are fallacious (If you can't see how yet, ask me and I'll explain).

MrAnony1:


Lol...the examples you gave are fallacious (If you can't see how yet, ask me and I'll explain).

MacCantStopMe:

Anticipating Anony's dodging/twisting of the comment in big font;
OPTION ONE- PUSHING THE ARGUMENT AWAY
-"Your ought=/=good examples are irrelevant to my own ought/purpose/good statements"
-"haha you misunderstood my argument on "ought/purpose"" (ihedinobi misunderstood technique/jutsu)

MrAnony1:

You heard and understood my answer yet you are asking me to answer as if God's intent necessarily has a moral value. What makes you think that God's intents must necessarily have a moral value?


You are still assuming that all designs are necessarily moral. You will need to justify this assumption first.


I do mind because it is important to me to ascertain that we are arguing in good faith and you are not just making up charges. I cannot clarify what I don't know if I have said or not just because you claim I said it. So please provide where I accepted what you claimed I did.

I will re phrase my question, does God's intent for man's design have a moral value? Note that you have defined and weighed good/bad according to the intent of design.

Kay17:

I know what you are trying to say, but my contention is whether the intent behind the design has a moral value, and your answer in that 'not necessarily' however in the case of God's intent for man's design, was it good or bad?!

First, what is the difference between "good" in "good vs bad" and "good vs evil"?

God's intent for man's design is good.

and by what standard is that decided?

God is the standard.

Sorry I think I didn't express myself as clearly as I would have wanted. I actually meant this: "anything is good for staying true to its design irrespective of the moral standing of the intents of the design"

"the moral standing of the intents of the design" of AK47 is: ...simple and reliable weapon to defend the borders of my fatherland - Mikhail Kalashnikov

...simple and reliable... (good in a design sense)
...defend the borders of my fatherland. (good in a moral sense)

Your turn:
What is the moral intent behind the invention of scissors?
Is the design good or bad?
If you think their is necessarily a moral intent, is it good or evil?

wiegraf:


later on you'll claim we're mates, but I'll leave it at that

Thanks for the compliment

wiegraf:

where does this leave abstract truths such as mathematical truths? deduction/induction etc. how are they classified, etc. those remain unaffected, no?

Mathematical truths, are the inevitable formalisms derived from the strict rules and axioms guiding the language of mathematics. Much like any other language, this is a means of communication, not objectively necessary, but useful for making logically true statements, for those to whom logical communication is important (i.e. humans as far as we know). Many humans don't see mathematical truths as objective, like when some say god is a 3 in 1 entity, each part of the 3 being as whole as the 1 whole. That's a mathematically senseless statement, but might be true according to the elusive and mysterious ways of the lord...lol.

SNCOQ3:

First, what is the difference between "good" in "good vs bad" and "good vs evil"?

God's intent for man's design is good.


God is the standard.


"the moral standing of the intents of the design" of AK47 is: ...simple and reliable weapon to defend the borders of my fatherland - Mikhail Kalashnikov

...simple and reliable... (good in a design sense)
...defend the borders of my fatherland. (good in a moral sense)

Your turn:
What is the moral intent behind the invention of scissors?
Is the design good or bad?
If you think their is necessarily a moral intent, is it good or evil?

Life is a blank slate with zero purpose. You fill in the purpose that you want.


You use the analogy of an Ak47.

The creator of the AK47 created it with good intentions to defend his motherland. However, it has become the most effective killing machine in the world.

A creator can create something with his own intentions/purposes but that is different from the creation having a purpose. An AK47 has no purpose. The user pours his or her own intent/purpose into the AK47- to either start war or defend his family or to ra.pe women.



Hyundai and Mercedez Benz both created cars for rich people. However, ask them the purpose of a car, one will tell you "for comfort/performance", the other will tell you for "simplicity and new thinking".


Again- only the user can put his purpose/intents on a creation

^^^

This means that we as users of our own lives, we can each give our lives the purpose we want it to have.


It is not universal that our purpose as humans is to do good. "Ought to" is a big pile of nonsense. There is only "what can be done", "which choice is more logical/effective" and "which choice gives more benefit to people"

SNCOQ3:

First, what is the difference between "good" in "good vs bad" and "good vs evil"?

For the purposes of this thread both shall be regarded as synonymous and must be construed in a moral context.

God's intent for man's design is good.


God is the standard.

Can I assume you have a different standard of morality from Anony1, because Anony1 believes morality is predicated on an 'ought' proposition and the basis of which is in the intent and therefore the source of morality is the intent of man's design.

"the moral standing of the intents of the design" of AK47 is: ...simple and reliable weapon to defend the borders of my fatherland - Mikhail Kalashnikov

...simple and reliable... (good in a design sense)
...defend the borders of my fatherland. (good in a moral sense)

Funny enough, don't you believe that to a pacificist, an AK47's barest purpose is to kill, and therefore evil?

Your turn:
What is the moral intent behind the invention of scissors?
Is the design good or bad?
If you think their is necessarily a moral intent, is it good or evil?

I personally believe a pair of scissors can have both good and bad value depending on who is using it and against whom it is being used against. However it is Anony1's idea that God's intent creates morality.

thehomer:

Another false assertion.

Lol that was a very true assertion.

This is why I say you're a poor apologist. I presented you with several questions you were supposed to answer. Instead, you've decided to rephrase one of them. This means you're either confused about what you're to do or you're deliberately trying to be dishonest. You just keep getting caught.

Lololol....It is comments like this that make me laugh....you know, when you resort to "you are either confused or dishonest" all the while evading the question which was originally asked you.

I didn't ask you to rephrase my question, I asked you to answer it. Any one with the ability to understand communication can tell the difference between rephrasing a question and answering it. Note that you have so far failed to give a single answer to the same question asked several times already.

If you had been paying any attention, you would have noticed that I wasn't responding to your question rather since you claimed you couldn't understand how "good" could mean "that which we ought to do", I decided to use one of your questions where you used the word good to illustrate my point. Now please stop dancing around and answer me.

Do you think the following two questions mean the same thing? ...and if you think they mean different things then please state how so.

Is it good to command someone to kill their child?"

"Is commanding someone to kill their child something we ought to do?"

Why don't you answer my questions before going down this rabbit trail? Or did I not answer your question on your oughts and what not?

Actually, no you did not answer my question.

I asked you:-

"Do you agree or disagree that if something ought to be, then there must be a purpose for which it ought to be?"

You replied that:-

"No I do not agree. Neutron stars ought to be but what is their purpose?"

To which I followed back with

"Lol I see, so why do you think neutron stars ought to be?"

The reason you don't want to continue down this line of inquiry is not because it is a "rabbit trail" as you claim rather it is because you know that
1. The moment you proffer any reason for why Neutron stars ought to be, you would have automatically conceded the point for which you claimed to disagree.
2. If you don't give a reason why you think Neutron stars ought to be, you will immediately be confronted with the fact that your claim is a mere assertion that has no value. Again this will affirm the position you claim to disagree with.

You are caught in a bind and so the only option you think is left to you is blowing up smoke by ignoring the question while accusing me of some sort of foul play.

It isn't a claim that the answer is vague, it is a request for you to clarify your response

Lol...so you need clarification for an answer you believe to be clear?

...by answering questions that are direct and phrased simply. I still wonder why you're afraid of answering direct questions.

Lol....who said I was afraid? You now assume motives too?

What is clear so far is that you're using a lot of words to say nothing about what good is. It appears that you can't even use your own idea of goodness to answer direct questions. In that case, what is the use of the idea you're failing to present?

Lol...the Idea has already been presented successfully. It is you who is looking for an excuse to reject it.

Now you're refusing to clarify your vague terms when asked.

Ok so now you are officially claiming I am being vague? Or this is not a claim too?

I must really bring out the fear of exposure in you.

Yikes!

If you don't think clarifications are needed, then answer the questions rather than rephrasing any of them. Give direct answers.
You've done nothing more than to rephrase a question you were asked to answer. If you're asked; does the moon come up at night? Rephrasing the question as; is the moon coming up at night something we should expect? Doesn't answer the question.

Lololol....You claim to ask clear questions yet you cannot tell if the way it was rephrased maintains or destroys the meaning of your question? I too wonder whether you are afraid that any attempt to clarify your questions will expose some dubious motive you might be hiding.

So, here again are the questions you've run from.

1. What does the phrase "that which we ought to do" mean? Please clarify with examples.
2. Is it good to command someone to kill their child? I think this can be answered with a yes or no with a brief explanation of course.
3. What is the objective way to live?
4. Is it evil to enslave other humans?
5. Is it evil to kill people at the whims of another person?
6. Is it evil to simply torture the vast majority of humans?
7. What is the correct sect of Christianity if at all it exists?

Don't rephrase them, don't ignore them, just answer them. That is the first step in clarification about what you're trying to say and showing that you're trying to have an honest conversation.

So here again are the questions you've run from....

1. Do you agree or disagree that that which is good is that which we ought to do?

2. Do you agree or disagree that if something ought to be, then there must be a purpose for which it ought to be?

As long as you will not answer me clearly and comprehensively, I will not answer you.