Philosophies: Liberalism vs. Conservatism
01 Dec 2007, 6:00 pm
marshall wrote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
I never denied that issue at all either.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Well, yeah, I am explaining the origin of something. All arguments do boil down to nothing of substance if you argue philosophy.
01 Dec 2007, 7:03 pm
Quote:
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
01 Dec 2007, 8:44 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
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.
Morality doesn't logically exist?? Have you ever heard of the prisoner's dilemma?? It's the foundation of altruistic behavior.
_________________
"The christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Thomas Jefferson
01 Dec 2007, 10:30 pm
marshall wrote:
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.
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.
jfrmeister wrote:
Morality doesn't logically exist?? Have you ever heard of the prisoner's dilemma?? It's the foundation of altruistic behavior.
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.
