Philosophies: Liberalism vs. Conservatism

Post Reply New Topic

No, no... Not in the meaning of my original post.

Conservativism means "responsibility", and liberalism means "irresponsibility" (aka "Someone else clean up my mess!").

Really?

Why I didn't thought about that before...... silly me.

Wow! Makes me wanna live on an island and having a select few Aspies invited; I know who's not welcome!

lol, I was being sarcastic, he wasn't I suppose.

So good is whatever the deity decides? But how do you know the deity isn’t lying in his revelations to man? The deity has the ability to define lying as good when he does it. Obviously the moral rules that apply to man don’t apply to a deity, so there is no reason he couldn’t be permitted to lie. If you say the deity wouldn’t lie you’re imposing a subjective morality on him.


I was talking hypothetically. If the goal is to live in a common society and not kill each other off it makes sense to choose a common subset of values from different cultures. That’s all I’m saying. I see this is going nowhere if you only want to argue metaphysics so lets just forget it.


And that’s why I don’t trust it.


In this case “practical” is preventing the human race from killing itself off in the name of religion. That I don’t want the human race to kill itself off is part of my own subjective values that I am not going to try and defend logically.

If Christians followed their religion to the logical conclusion it would be a moral imperative to convert everyone in the world to Christianity, including the bloody Muslims and everyone else. The use of force could certainly be justified if the end result is saving souls from eternal torture in hell.


Exactly. There’s nothing more to argue here.



The second sentence is a positive claim that you can’t prove. Why is a deity necessary? Why couldn’t an objective morality exist without a deity? Please answer this.


Why? You give no reasons why such a “metaphysical device” is necessary.


This statement makes no sense. Why must there be a being? Please define “being”.

Yep. You don't. The reason is that it could be against his nature. It can be argued that morality is a part of the deity.


Yes, it could.

Morality makes no sense, therefore it takes something with the ability to do the inconceivable to exist.

There is no logical way to derive an ought from an is.


Being? A being is exactly what it is. A thing that exists. Why must it exist? Because the challenge is perhaps logically impossible except for a being defined as capable of doing the logically impossible.

Depending on which context you put it, in a philosophical way it may be it may not, depending on your philosophical branch, in a case when a course of action is imperative...........

But lying doesn’t have to be against his nature. The moral standards that apply to man don't necessarily need to apply to the deity. Lying could be good in the case of the deity even if it's bad for a human to lie. He could lie for any reason and it would always be moral. The only way to accept a moral code revealed to man is to trust that it isn’t a lie. Saying that the deity wouldn’t lie is imposing your subjective morality on him.

The point is that objective morality is unknowable even if you assume on faith the existence of a deity. You also have to assume on faith that you’re not being mislead about what that constitutes true objective morality.


That isn’t a logical statement though. It seems like a variation on the “prime mover” argument. It’s not a logical argument but an appeal to our intuitive feelings of causality. The fact that thinking outside the framework of causal structures is difficult for humans doesn’t imply that everything must have a cause. I still don’t see how stating the existance of objective morality without a deity is logically inconsistent.


But when you use words like “doing” you are assuming a causal structure exists. I don’t even understand how it makes sense to say that a deity does anything if the deity exists outside of causal structures. Ugh. It seems like in the end all arguments boil down to nothing of substance when we try too hard to analyze things. This stuff makes my brain hurt. I really need a break.

Nope, it has nothing to do with subjective morality as I think that the term is inherently an internal contradiction. It has more to do with beliefs, faith, and all of that stuff. I never said that a deity cannot possibly lie though.

I never denied that issue at all either.


No, I disagree. I say that morality logically shouldn't exist, therefore if it does exist then it requires something beyond logic. The universe does logically exist though, so it is different.


Well, yeah, I am explaining the origin of something. All arguments do boil down to nothing of substance if you argue philosophy.

You still haven’t shown logically that objective morality requires a deity. You provide no reason why objective morality “requires” something “beyond logic”. Just because objective morality and God are “beyond logic”, doesn’t mean you can make a non-logical statement connecting the two and then claim it's a logical argument.

Morality doesn't logically exist?? Have you ever heard of the prisoner's dilemma?? It's the foundation of altruistic behavior.

The Is-Ought problem, which argues that even deistic morality is flawed. I thought that I would not have to even bring that up because I would have thought that most would know. There is nothing in the basis of what is that can make up a statement of ought. Also, if you'll note, I did not always stick to a single deity creating morality but still affirmed the existence of something spiritual at all times, because like I keep on affirming, if morality makes no sense then in order for it to exist, there must be something in existence that defies sense by its nature. Not only that but this human moral magnetic field that our compasses latch onto makes less sense in a world without more human components in a higher plane.


I have heard of the prisoner's dilemma. I am talking about philosophy though, not game theory and ethical egoism. I KNOW the prisoner's dilemma, but altruistic behavior is not synonymous with moral behavior. Basically, logically I argue that the Is-Ought problem makes conventional morality(right and wrong, good and evil, moral judgement) impossible, meaning that morality does not logically exist as ought has no proper derivation from anything.