MacCantStopMe:

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

If this is true, then there is no such thing as a good or a bad life and consequently there are no good or evil actions.

MrAnony1:

If this is true, then there is no such thing as a good or a bad life and consequently there are no good or evil actions.

Logicboy didn't lay any assumptions for you to imply such. The conclusion flows from your own assumptions, not logicboy's.

MrAnony1:

If this is true, then there is no such thing as a good or a bad life and consequently there are no good or evil actions.

FALSE argument. Non sequitur- it doesnt follow.


Purpose and morality are two different things entirely.


A blank slate can be filled with good or evil.

MrAnony1:

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.

You didn't miss the verses, but you didn't answer my question either. It was simple: Is slavery objectively right or wrong according to your world view? Can you for once be direct and stop your prolix meanders and posturing. You've asserted that my worldview is wrong, it's fallacious, it's this and that...okay! Now, Leave my world view out of this and answer my question according to YOUR worldview.

Kay17:
For the purposes of this thread both shall be regarded as synonymous and must be construed in a moral context.

OK.

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.

I believe in Objective Morality therefore, I agree with Anony.

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

A peacemaker is not necessarily a pacifist. A pacifist is out of touch with the reality of the human condition in regard to evil: therefore, a fool.

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.

Wrong. think about it.
It is the user that is good or evil, not the tool.

MrAnony1:

Lol that was a very true assertion.


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.

It doesn't look like you're laughing. It looks to me like you're simply showing your fear.

MrAnony1:

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?"

And here he comes with rephrasing a question he is supposed to answer. Once again, [size=14pt]I've not asked you to rephrase my question, I asked you to answer it.[/size] If rephrasing it helps you, go ahead but answer it. I already told you to use your own understanding of what good is to answer the question but once again, you didn't answer, but you rephrased my question.

MrAnony1:

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.

You'll notice that I answered your question directly I put it in bold for you just so you don't forget that I actually answered it. I've decided not to answer your follow up question because you've so far not answered any of my questions but rephrased one of them. If you want my answer, then stop rephrasing my question and actually present your answers to my questions.

MrAnony1:

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

I already told you that your answer wasn't clear.

MrAnony1:

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

You don't have to say it. Your responses already show it. You've tried so hard not to answer direct questions that it shows your fear of actually presenting an answer.

MrAnony1:

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

If it has been presented successfully, then use that presentation to answer my questions rather than rephrasing one of them.

MrAnony1:

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

That isn't a claim, you've demonstrated it by not answering simple and direct questions.

MrAnony1:

Yikes!

Yes I'm that good.

MrAnony1:

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.

You understood the question well enough to rephrase it but you won't answer the original one? This tells me you're not clarifying it, but you're simply failing to be dishonest. Once again, don't rephrase it, answer it.

MrAnony1:

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?

Asked and answered. Your phrase "that which we ought to do" requires clarification.

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?

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

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

[size=14pt]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.[/size]

OlaAjia:


You didn't miss the verses, but you didn't answer my question either. It was simple: Is slavery objectively right or wrong according to your world view? Can you for once be direct and stop your prolix meanders and posturing. You've asserted that my worldview is wrong, it's fallacious, it's this and that...okay! Now, Leave my world view out of this and answer my question according to YOUR worldview.

Let's watch MrAnony1 run from answering a direct question.

MacCantStopMe:

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

See decree. You must be god.

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"

If your life is a blank slate, who is this you that is filling the 'blank slate' or using this 'tool' that is your life?
Why is this you a moral being/morally concious, and as once argued for universal morality in the person of cheers01

MrAnony1:

There is nothing vague about that answer.

It is a statement, not an answer because there was no question. And it is vague...So far everybody with whom you're having this discussion has been asking you for clarification since 19gbogboro and you have refused...like an artful dodger

MrAnony1:

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

Yes, but clarify your previous statement.

MrAnony1:

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?

You don't have to tell me anything. However, we're having an adult discussion here, I hope. It's borderline haughty to postpone my question and then require me to answer yours, so you first...or explain why you don't have to tell me that purpose. Don't just prescribe to me as if I'm a child.

MrAnony1:

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?

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?

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

The examples I gave are evidently fallacious in light of your statement, but they are not vague, and I find nothing inherently fallacious in them, which is why I need you to clarify your statement...or show me the fallacy in them.

SNCOQ3:

See decree. You must be god.



If your life is a blank slate, who is this you that is filling the 'blank slate' or using this 'tool' that is your life?
Why is this you a moral being/morally concious, and as once argued for universal morality in the person of cheers01

I still argue for universal morality.

However, you forget 2 things

a) Purpose is far different from morality. They are independent of each other.

b) There are some things (morality) that are universal and some (morality) that cant be universal

SNCOQ3:

OK.


I believe in Objective Morality therefore, I agree with Anony.


A peacemaker is not necessarily a pacifist. A pacifist is out of touch with the reality of the human condition in regard to evil: therefore, a fool.


Wrong. think about it.
It is the user that is good or evil, not the tool.

In the light of your agreement with Anony1 on morality, does God's intent for mankind have a moral value?

Let me clarify for Anony since he won't do it himself.

We ought to do good because God's nature is goodness.

This is apparent for everyone to see, and it's a "universal and objective truth" that morality and goodness emanate from God. Since everyone believes in God, even those who deny his existence, everyone is bound by the morality of our creator. This morality is objective and immutable; and it can be described as what we ought to do.

Since we ought to do good, we conclude that we have a purpose and that purpose can only come from God because God is goodness.

MacCantStopMe:

I still argue for universal morality.

Well, I consider universal morality a face-saving "alternative" to objective morality. Its a humanistic diversion of the the destructive logical conclusion of atheist belief: the consequence of relativistic and nihilistic mindset.

However, you forget 2 things

a) Purpose is far different from morality. They are independent of each other.

They are far different the way a plate of beans is different from the stomach.
As for independence, you have to elaborate.

b) There are some things (morality) that are universal and some (morality) that cant be universal

That is not the argument.
Since your life is a blank slate, who is this morally-aware being that is doing the filling?
The point is, you cannot hold that you are a moral being and still consider your life a blank slate.

MrAnony1:
.

"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?"
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.

They don't mean the same thing because the first question is about the desirability of the action and the second question is about advisability.
We don't ought to do everything we desire and everything we ought to do isn't desirable.

You should answer Homer's questions now and quit rephrasing questions and dodging. Watching you flail and "lolololol" is fun though.

@cheers01,
By universal morality, I mean "morality by consensus" a la Humanist Manifesto.

SNCOQ3:

Well, I consider universal morality a face-saving "alternative" to objective morality. Its a humanistic diversion of the the destructive logical conclusion of atheist belief: the consequence of relativistic and nihilistic mindset.


They are far different the way a plate of beans is different from the stomach.
As for independence, you have to elaborate.


That is not the argument.
Since your life is a blank slate, who is this morally-aware being that is doing the filling?
The point is, you cannot hold that you are a moral being and still consider your life a blank slate.

Your arguments do not follow. I am having a hard time finding where to start. But I'll try;


1) When you have a blank chalkboard, you can draw beautiful or ugly things on it. Very simple analogy. just as in life, you can give yourself a good or bad purpose. I dont know how to explain this any further.

2) Universal morality stems from the fact that logic remains true wherever you are in the universe. Mathematically, 1+1 will always be 2. Stealing from your neighbour's pot will always carry more disadvantage than advantages.

The problem is that logic can not be applied to all moral issues. Those ones get you into logical paradoxes

Kay17:


In the light of your agreement with Anony1 on morality, does God's intent for mankind have a moral value?

God is Morality.
Anything He does is in agreement with Himself.

thehomer:


Let's watch MrAnony1 run from answering a direct question.

I'm guessing he's realised his folly somewhere along the line, but refuses to back down because it might chip a little chunk off his apologetic street cred. The only alternative is to keep wriggling his way out with even more spectacularly vague sentences. It is clear that he's just happy to dwell on the perfunctory.

MrAnony1:

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?

Since everyone wants you to clarify, I won't put that burden on you. So I agree that there is a mind purposing, and you don't have to tell me the purpose. Now what?

SNCOQ3:

God is Morality.
Anything He does is in agreement with Himself.

God is morality?

Yet, 90% of his prophets will be considered immoral today. Moses, Joshua, Abraham, Solomon etc would be in police custody for terrorism, child abuse etc


Yet, God himself in the form of Jesus was racist to a Canaanite woman.



Yet, no two followers of God can agree on his morality.



God is the opposite of morality

SNCOQ3:

Anything He does is in agreement with Himself.

What does this mean?

SNCOQ3:

Well, I consider universal morality a face-saving "alternative" to objective morality. Its a humanistic diversion of the the destructive logical conclusion of atheist belief: the consequence of relativistic and nihilistic mindset.

Alas, the danger in the objective view of morality is that it inexorably leads to the conflation of 'universality' and 'objectivity'. Two, different things, no doubt. Even though it may be said that the notion of morality is universally accepted by humans, morality doesn't exist independent of humans, so it is subjective (i.e. subject to human interpretation). You can ponder and postulate upon the existence of an objective entity, but you can never make the leap to assert its existence, for to do so, you must first vacate the confining constructs of your sensory devices (i.e. your mind). In simple terms, it is impossible to sense objectivity, so you cannot claim anything is ontologically objective. This does not mean you don't perceive things in a definite way. Now, if a collective of entities (say people) have similar sensors - that is, they have minds - as you, then your sensations will necessarily be similar, hence the erroneous perception of objective morality.

SNCOQ3:

God is Morality.
Anything He does is in agreement with Himself.

In other words, God commands and obeys himself?!

Martian:


They don't mean the same thing because the first question is about the desirability of the action and the second question is about advisability.
We don't ought to do everything we desire and everything we ought to do isn't desirable.

You should answer Homer's questions now and quit rephrasing questions and dodging. Watching you flail and "lolololol" is fun though.

Later MrAnony1 will claim he's not the one converting is to ought and whatnots to whatwhat.

MacCantStopMe:

Your arguments do not follow. I am having a hard time finding where to start. But I'll try;


1) When you have a blank chalkboard, you can draw beautiful or ugly things on it. Very simple analogy. just as in life, you can give yourself a good or bad purpose. I dont know how to explain this any further.

Doesn't this illustration contradict your materialist world view?
Who is this you that is making a moral choice of giving yourself a good or bad purpose?
You don't seem to get it. If this you is the same as what you described as the "blank chalkboard" (yourself), then their is no such thing as a "blank chalkboard".

2) Universal morality stems from the fact that logic remains true wherever you are in the universe. Mathematically, 1+1 will always be 2.

Its interesting that your idea of universal morality is not "morality by consensus".
In order words, just like logic, universal morality is transcendental - if this is what you mean, then its just another name for objective morality.

Stealing from your neighbour's pot will always carry more disadvantage than advantages.

how so? giving that morality is transcendental- the choice of stealing should not be predicated on personal advantage.

The problem is that logic can not be applied to all moral issues. Those ones get you into logical paradoxes

care to explain?

MacCantStopMe:



God is morality?

Yet, 90% of his prophets will be considered immoral today. Moses, Joshua, Abraham, Solomon etc would be in police custody for terrorism, child abuse etc


Yet, God himself in the form of Jesus was racist to a Canaanite woman.



Yet, no two followers of God can agree on his morality.



God is the opposite of morality

I wasn't expecting you to agree. But, at least you seem to understand the implication of what you quoted, unlike those who are pretending not to.

OlaAjia:


Alas, the danger in the objective view of morality is that it inexorably leads to the conflation of 'universality' and 'objectivity'. Two, different things, no doubt. Even though it may be said that the notion of morality is universally accepted by humans, morality doesn't exist independent of humans, so it is subjective (i.e. subject to human interpretation). You can ponder and postulate upon the existence of an objective entity, but you can never make the leap to assert its existence, for to do so, you must first vacate the confining constructs of your sensory devices (i.e. your mind). In simple terms, it is impossible to sense objectivity, so you cannot claim anything is ontologically objective. This does not mean you don't perceive things in a definite way. Now, if a collective of entities (say people) have similar sensors - that is, they have minds - as you, then your sensations will necessarily be similar, hence the erroneous perception of objective morality.

Is 1+1 = 2 subjective? Does it require a consensus of "similar sensors" to reach such conclusion?

SNCOQ3:


Is 1+1 = 2 subjective? Does it require a consensus of "similar sensors" to reach such conclusion?

Yes.

Now you tell me, is 1+1+1= 3 =1 objective?

OlaAjia:


Yes.

Now you tell me, is 1+1+1= 3 =1 objective?

una no go kill person with laugh

OlaAjia:

Yes.

OK.

Now you tell me, is 1+1+1= 3 =1 objective?

1+1+1 = 3 Objective
1X1X1 = 1 Objective

SNCOQ3:

Doesn't this illustration contradict your materialist world view?
Who is this you that is making a moral choice of giving yourself a good or bad purpose?
You don't seem to get it. If this you is the same as what you described as the "blank chalkboard" (yourself), then their is no such thing as a "blank chalkboard".


Its interesting that your idea of universal morality is not "morality by consensus".
In order words, just like logic, universal morality is transcendental - if this is what you mean, then its just another name for objective morality.


how so? giving that morality is transcendental- the choice of stealing should not be predicated on personal advantage.


care to explain?

Consensus? When did I argue for concensus morality?

MacCantStopMe:



Consensus? When did I argue for concensus morality?

I don't even know how he got to that conclusion.