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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kay17:


It is Immanel Kant's philosophy on objective morality, that it is accessible via reason. And uncreated because of some contradiction issues. Try reading it up.

Thanks, I'll look it up when I have time.

^^^
Man's sinful nature.

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?

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.

thehomer:
It does this by your vagueness on what you mean by the phrase "that which we ought to do".

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

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.

And here you show that your definition of "good" relies on the phrase "that which we ought to do". Well I'll let you decide. Is it good to command someone to kill their child? Please don't run from this question. Your entire argument hinges on it.

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.

What you mean by good.

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

I think it is meaningless until you can explain what this objective way to live is.

Well, I don't think so.

Where you said this:

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?

That is no a premise, that is your entire argument. Secondly, you've misquoted me. I did not say everyone needs to do a particular thing. Thirdly, if you understand that argument, you'll see that I've captured what you're saying. If you think I've misrepresented you, then you're welcome to clarify your statement.

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.

That is actually what you're saying when you're asking me to prove you wrong otherwise your point stands. So far, I've asked you to show that there is some objective way that we ought to live but so far, you've not done that. Instead you've started confusing yourself.

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.

Even if there is no cosmic purpose for human existence, there can still be right ways for humans to live.

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

I see you're on a 200 question roll. Let's simplify things by you saying whether or not it is evil to enslave other humans, to kill people at the whims of some other person or torture the vast majority of humans. Then we can take it a step at a time.

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.

Since you know, why don't you tell me the correct sect of Christianity?

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?

I have an objective method of differentiating. Whether or not you accept it is up to you. After all, the evidence for evolution is objective but creationists and others don't accept it. As I said, I can tell whether or not drinking battery acid helps or harms. Can you?

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

Again, I've answered your questions but so far, you've not answered any of my questions

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

but you've tried to play 200 questions. That too won't work.

I haven't

You can move this discussion forward by clearly saying what you think "that which we ought to do" actually refers to with some actual examples. I've given you examples but you've tried to run from them. Try not to run and challenge your fears.

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.

Kay17:

No, that's a twist you got yourself into. Because you defined good and evil with the most absurd meaning. Good meaning conforming with the intents of the design and Evil being straying from the intent of the design. So a machine such as an AK 47 that doesn't kill people well enough is definitely an evil machine!!

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.

So that establishes my claim that the Christian is a typical hypocrite.

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)."

OlaAjia:
Why should they be one and the same?

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

Okay



"Objective" being the operative word

Yes

For the avoidance of equivocation, I hope you don't mind that I have taken the liberty of preceding "purpose" with "objective" above.

I don't mind

No, I don't agree.

I see, so you don't agree that there is such a thing as an objective good.

I'm open to any kind of proof. My only requirement is that it is foolproof.

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.

I see no equivocation. Whence comes this purposing purpose of the creator? Is it of an objective/subjective origin, that is, did the creator just decide to give itself a purpose?

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.

I know that certain actions are good based on my subjective opinions, and my opinions are informed and strengthened by the consequential feedback of those actions.

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.

There is no problem here at all. Take physical pain for instance. We can, from phenomenological evidence, infer the near universality of pain (pleasure, likewise) in all animals with a central nervous system. From this, we can further infer that animals generally despise pain. Hence, we act in such a way to reduce this pain.

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.
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"

As you can see, my opinion, though subjective, is still informed. And you’re right that there is no “objective” standard that makes it preferable. Nevertheless, there are universal standards, some rational, others, not so much, which inform the side that takes preponderance. Of course, these universal standards can sometimes be questioned and eventually overturned (e.g. slavery and homosexuality) and at other times, they endure due to perceived necessity or group pleasures (e.g. eating other animals and neutering pets).

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?

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

It is usually the very high degree of universality of certain opinions that creates the illusion of objectivity.

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.

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

OlaAjia:
Why should they be one and the same?

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

Okay



"Objective" being the operative word

Yes

For the avoidance of equivocation, I hope you don't mind that I have taken the liberty of preceding "purpose" with "objective" above.

I don't mind

No, I don't agree.

I see, so you don't agree that there is such a thing as an objective good.

I'm open to any kind of proof. My only requirement is that it is foolproof.

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.

I see no equivocation. Whence comes this purposing purpose of the creator? Is it of an objective/subjective origin, that is, did the creator just decide to give itself a purpose?

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.

I know that certain actions are good based on my subjective opinions, and my opinions are informed and strengthened by the consequential feedback of those actions.

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.

There is no problem here at all. Take physical pain for instance. We can, from phenomenological evidence, infer the near universality of pain (pleasure, likewise) in all animals with a central nervous system. From this, we can further infer that animals generally despise pain. Hence, we act in such a way to reduce this pain.

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.
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"

As you can see, my opinion, though subjective, is still informed. And you’re right that there is no “objective” standard that makes it preferable. Nevertheless, there are universal standards, some rational, others, not so much, which inform the side that takes preponderance. Of course, these universal standards can sometimes be questioned and eventually overturned (e.g. slavery and homosexuality) and at other times, they endure due to perceived necessity or group pleasures (e.g. eating other animals and neutering pets).

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?

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

It is usually the very high degree of universality of certain opinions that creates the illusion of objectivity.

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.

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.

thehomer:

Circular definition: A definition relying directly or indirectly on the term being defined.

How does the definition "that which we ought to do" rely directly or indirectly on the term "Good" which is being defined?

This is a senseless response. A triangle axiomatically has three sides. Goodness is not axiomatic. If you wish to make it axiomatic, then you have to do the work required.

Good is axiomatically that which we ought to do . . . . or do you know of anything that is good but ought not to be done?

That's because you're blinded by your confusion.

Lol....I see. Please could you explain to me exactly what I am supposed to be confused about.

Don't bother hedging with the "if". Tell me what this objective way in which we ought to live is. I would prefer it if you could actually spell it out.

I am not "hedging with the if" The statement remains what it is. Do you think it is true or not?

This is a silly request. You're asking me to agree with you before you even present your argument.

I am quite sure I asked you if you agree with my premise or not, please show where I asked you to agree with me before I present my argument.

Secondly, you request for my explanation is useless because you're the one stating that everyone ought to do some particular thing not me. This means you're asking me to make your argument for you. And that is one of the signs of intellectual laziness.

Wow I wonder how you got "everyone needs to do a particular thing" from that statement, I said:

"IF there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live."

I asked you if you agreed with the above premise and to give reasons if you disagree. Please stop dancing around and accusing me of things I haven't said.

You have successfully committed the fallacy of appealing to ignorance. You're saying that you're right because I haven't proved you to be wrong. That is the wrong way to go about it. You're supposed to show you're right by actually demonstrating your reasons.

No I did not say that I am right because you haven't proved me wrong, You are the one who thinks that I need to provide reasons why if there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live. I don't see why I have to give reasons for something so obvious.

Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Really? How so?

If this creator wants humans to enslave other humans, if this creator wants humans to kill at his whim, if this creator wants the vast majority of humans to be tortured, I'd say it is pretty evil.

Is it evil because you say so? Or is it evil because of some other reason independent of your opinion? and if so, what reason would that be?

The multiple sects are real and they read about Christ in the gospels so there's no point in me doing that. It is in fact you who should do that and tell me who the correct sect is. After all, Roman Catholicism is very different from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society with is also very different from the Seventh Day Adventist Church. You can tell me which if any of them is correct after you have read your Bible.

Lol, I see. So you have refused to find out for yourself. Ok . . . did I mention how much I admire your open-mindedness.

I have a method that is as good as how we know whether or not drinking battery acid helps or harms. Whether you think it is objective or subjective is up for discussion. But be aware that pursuing that discussion will require you to present your own ideas.

In other words you haven't answered my question about whether or not you have an objective method of differentiating between help and harm.

No you've not. You're as usual danced around and avoided directly answering any questions. You'll notice that I on the other hand have directly answered your questions.

Lololololol...I really appreciate all your "direct answers" which consist of bluntly refusing to answer the questions asked of you and while accusing me of saying what I did not say.

Kay17:

This was what I said:

Yes I heard you clearly and my point still remains that it is logically incoherent to create man to do evil. It is about as illogical as saying that you designed something to malfunction.

Because you have earlier confirmed that no man is sinless and is pushed to sin by his desires.

Yes and I also remember saying that "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)."

pesty100:

Just re-read what you have wrote so far and you will see what am saying

I have re-read it now and I still do not see what you are saying

You are not moral because you think it right, or because you empathise on the other person's feelings

I never said so

you are moral because your story book says you should be, just like the muslim's story book tells them to kill those that doesn't agree with them, if your story book had told you so, who know how many head you would have taken

I don't know what story books you are referring to. Please go back and read what I actually said.

Fallacy of the single cause (causal
oversimplification[35]) – it is assumed that there
is one, simple cause of an outcome

I didn't ask you what the fallacy is, I asked you how it applies.

mazaje:


So is the reality. . .A lot of the moral principles in your bible can not apply in some parts of the world today. . .You can not tell a gay that something is wrong with him in the society where I live, if you do you will be breaking the law of the land. . .Try half of the OT morality and ou will end up in prison today. . .We came from people who sacrifice their children and children of others to appease the gods for rain o r to cure outbreak of disease epidemic. . .




True to whom?. . .The multiplication table is a human construct and makes sense only to humans. . who else uses the multiplication table apart from humans?. . .Of what use is the multiplication table to a goat or a mountain lion?. . .What about the trees, dust, mountains and other things that exist in nature?. . .Of what use is the multiplication table to them?. . .The multiplication table is true and makes sense only to humans and it remains a human construct. .5x5=25 makes sense only to humans. . .It is objective and remains a human construct which humans use understand and make sense of things. . .




They are based on humans. . . As I aforementioned we can invent a set of moral values in common with other human beings like us, with the objective perspective being derived from human beings simple.




Yeah, like the moral system of your god advocating slavery and encouraging people to sell their daughters into slavery. . Such an example is an example of how wrong this objective source of morality you are advocating is. . .You can not claim that your god is the source of objective human morality when he have him violating it. . .If slavery is objectively wrong then your god can not be said to be its source simply because we have him advocating and encouraging slavery. . .What ever form of objective moral principle you think of we have your god violating it. . .So he can not be the source of such moral principle. . . I repeat the fact that all moral principles come about differently is evidence that they are man made. . .Who created the sharia?. . .The buddisht moral philosophy of nirvana?. . .You want to discard other moral philosophies as wrong and accept that only the one you have been indoctrinated with as the right one, but i will always be there to show you that yours is also wrong just as you believe theirs to be wrong. . .Bottom line is you can not point to any god creating any moral system, you can only point to men who use their various gods as an enforcing mechanism. For moral systems they created. .



Which god?. . .There are so many gods which are all man made inventions, conceptions and ideas. . .

I think we are done now. Thanks for your time.

Kay17:


Do you know what Categorical Imperative is?

No I don't. What is it?

Kay17:


Yet the key factor is whether or not both desires are in their conscious control. If a conscious latch is lacked over sinful desires, man becomes an automaton in respect to those impulses.

I get your point but you are wrong to say that man is an automaton in respect to his impulses because he cannot consciously choose his desires. While it is true that man is influenced by his desires, he is not controlled by them. A man is able to choose whether or not to succumb to a desire.

If it were true that man could not choose whether or not to act upon his desires, but his actions were driven by whatever he desired, then we couldn't possibly have a sense in which there is right and wrong or justice/injustice because every man would simply be an automaton in respect to his impulses. A rapist for instance wouldn't be responsible for rape because he didn't have conscious control of his desires. There would be no such thing as moral responsibility.

plaetton:
"A directed process must have director" is a silly proposition that does not belong anywhere close to a scientific argument.

Wow! Why Plaetton why?

pesty100:

You contradict yourself mr man, when you say evil is what we ought not to do and we are created to do good, and still yet we do evil which we ought not do

Doing what you ought not to do does not contradict the fact that you ought not to do it.

pesty100:
you really don't give a s*hit about how the child feels, the only thing you want to do is serve, and you re here talking about morality, you should be ashamed. Because your morality is to your master and not to morality

I am curious to know exactly what you mean by suggesting that I should be moral to morality. You seem to think it is so important to the extent that I should be ashamed because "my morality is not to morality". Please explain what you mean by the phrase.

pesty100:
you are making the Fallacy of the single cause , beacause the flying spaghetti monster is also necessarily wise

I don't see how the fallacy of a single cause applies to what you quoted. Perhaps you can explain exactly how it does.

thehomer:

Looks like you're going for a circular definition here that thoroughly ignores my question.

Of course, isolate the first sentence in a 200 word answer and claim that it ignores your question. By the way, what is a circular definition and how does how I define good fit that description?

How do you know that what you ought to do is good?

This is like asking me how I know that a triangle has three sides. It is a senseless question. . . .or perhaps you don't know the meaning of "by definition"

All I see you doing is trying to dance around relating goodness to something having to do with human beings.

I don't see what you see

Where does this "purpose for which we exist" come from?

IF there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live. (Note the IF)

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.

Looks to me like another one of your mere assertions that you've decided to hang everything on.

A mere assertion you say...why don't you disprove it by showing how it is false to say that if there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live.

Who even says that there is a "purpose for which we exist"?

If there is no purpose for which we exist, then there is no objectively right way for us to live our lives.

I don't see how the existence of this creator of yours makes any difference. e.g What if the creator is evil?

How can the creator be evil if good is that which we ought to do and that which we ought to do depends on the purposes of the one who created us?

Now we're getting somewhere. I take it that you know what the Christian God's will and purpose are and you think you can determine what it is from the Bible that is so unclear that it has allowed multiple even contradictory sects?

With this line, you've successfully not answered any question. What is Christlike? Is it Christlike to command a genocide? Is it Christlike to command that children be killed? Is it Christlike to leave one's family for the sake of some preacher?

You can always read about Christ in the Gospels to understand what it means to be Christlike and if the "multiple contradictory sects" you talk about are Christlike.

I know based on whether or not its effects generally help or harm people.

I see, so do you have an objective method of differentiating between help and harm? Or is it based on your subjective opinion?

I hope you'll be able to give concrete responses to the issues I've raised above.

I have already.

OlaAjia post=/post/26577682:


Why do you assume we ought to do something because it is "good"?

That's not what I said. I do not differentiate between good and what ought to be done. They are one and the same.

Here, you have merely stated what is, and as a result, what ought to be, yet you have provided no link between the two. Here's an example: I live in China, and I know there exists a Chinese rule that the use of drugs results in the death penalty. Being a lover of life, I know I oughtn't use drugs. As you can see in my simple example, "not using drugs" is something I ought to do, yet, it isn't because not using drugs is the purpose for which I exist, it is merely because using drugs will definitely result in my non-existence, an outcome whose dire consequence will result in me no longer being able to ponder upon the purpose for my existence.

You completely missed the point made. The point is that where there is an "ought", a purpose must invariably follow. If you ought to do X, there must be a purpose for it. If there is no purpose for doing X then there is no way of rightfully saying that one ought to do X.

For instance, you ought not to use drugs in china because the purpose is to preserve your life. If the purpose is not to preserve your life (i.e. assuming there was no Chinese law against drugs and drugs don't kill you) then there is no point in saying that you ought not to take drugs.

Likewise if there is a certain way that we objectively ought to live our lives then it necessarily follows that there must be an objective purpose for which we live.

The italicised above is a hypothetical, true, supposing the purpose is objective. The subsequent deduction is therefore false, given a subjective purpose. Purposes can be contrived (e.g. pareidolias relating to the flying spaghetti monster), hence bearing no inherent meaning apart from that which is subjectively imposed thereto. Nevertheless, as the foregoing China example demonstrates, this hypothetical is just that, a hypothetical.

Good so we agree that IF it is true that there is a purpose for which we exist, then it must be true that we are designed. (note the IF)

But does good exist in an objective sense?

Yes I believe that good exists in an objective sense. Don't you agree?

(Notice that you do not disagree with the premise that an objective good necessitates the existence of a creator. Rather you question the existence of an objective good.)

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?

What should this prove look like? What would satisfy your requirements for proof.

In addition, by presupposing a "purpose" for this creator, aren't you, according to your italicised text above, implying that the creator was also designed?

Not at all. The Creator has a purpose in the sense that he purposes (i.e. He has a purpose for His creation). On the other hand, the created has a purpose in the sense that he is purposed (i.e he has a purpose given to him by the Creator) To mix up the different ways "purpose" is used here will be to commit the fallacy of equivocation.

Subjective wisdom. Personally, my ideological disposition is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. However, many thought experiments (like the trolley problem) have shown me that I'm not a stoic utilitarian. What they do demonstrate is that when the chips are down, local/personal pleasures often come first.

So in other words, you don't know whether certain actions are good. You only subjectively hold an opinion of what may or may not be good (i.e. maximizing pain and minimizing pleasure). You even go further to actively doubt your own opinions.

The problem with this is that you have effectively excluded yourself from any meaningful discussion concerning what is right or wrong. The best you can say is that you have an opinion and that's pretty useless to the discourse since nearly everyone else does. There is no objective standard by which we can say that your opinion of maximizing pleasure is any better than the opinion to maximize pain held by someone else.

Kay17 post=/post/26581754:

Remember that earlier you said we are to do good, because we are designed to do good; so using the same logic, if we were designed to be evil, equally we should do evil.

Evil by definition is that which we ought not to do. What you are saying is that it is possible to design a thing to function as it was not designed to function . . . .and that is logically incoherent.

So I will always meet hypocritical Christians who constantly repent rather than follow Christian values consistently?

How exactly did you arrive at this statement from what I said?

Martian post=/post/26572429:

People will disagree about was it right because there is no universally acceptable standard of morality. It depends on the people and what they find conducive.

You couldn't be any more wrong. Truth is independent of consensus. You don't need a universal agreement to make any fact true.

Let me employ your logic for a minute and say that since there is no universal agreement that morality is relative, therefore morality is not relative.

Hopefully you now realize how illogical your argument is.

Unless you can produce a universal standard of morality that is independent of man and culture, then your objective morality is self refuting.

You obviously don't know what it means for something to be self-refuting.

Morality is relative. The illogical absurdity is claiming that your unsubstantiated claims and animist beliefs are objective and universal.

I see. I particularly like the phrase "unsubstantiated claims" especially when it comes from a relativist.

How does a person who denies objectivity talk about substantiating claims? I wonder.

Kay17:
Assuming men through their sinful desires are driven to sins which they consciously resist and are aware of. Wouldn't it be unjust to punish them for actions they hardly have conscious control over?

So in these men there are two contending desires one to sin and the other to be righteous but the desire to sin is greater hence they sin. Did I get you right?

mazaje post=/post/26581937:

Morality is a human construct that has gone through thousands of years of evolution by humans. . . .

So you say.

Why not?. . .Take the multiplication table for example, it is a human construct but also objective. . .We can invent a set of moral values in common with other human beings like us, with the objective perspective being derived from human beings simple.

You are absolutely wrong on that. Multiplication equations like 5x8=40 and 6x6=36 e.t.c. were true long before any human being existed and will still be true long after all humans are gone. It is logically incoherent to say that something is both a human construct an objective.

. . .No need invoking a supernatural entity. . .If what you are saying is true then atheist or societies that do not believe in deities like the Buddhist and other religions that have no central diety will lack this objective moral value but the reality says otherwise. . .

Do atheists and buddhists believe in the existence of objective moral values and if so what are these values based upon?

Sharia law, the muslims see it as the best objective moral system that was given to humanity by the creator of the universe itself. . .How did it come about compared to a very different moral system like the buddisht moral philosophy of selflessness till Nirvana is achieved?

I see. Now I get your question. You are asking that if morality is based on one God, why do we have different moral systems such as are Sharia and Buddhist systems? Before I answer this question, I must ask whether you are willing to grant that it is possible for some moral systems to be wrong?

I believe I have already answered your question. . .If morality is independent of man's opinion then on whose opinion does it depend?. . .

Morality depends on God's nature. (Please note that I didn't say God's opinion)