21 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KAnd there you have it. This is where we dissagree 100%. The transformation of your heart is all that matters. How intelligent or good looking you are matters little in comparison to the condition of your heart. In fact, the most dangerous people in the world are those who are highly intelligent and who have an evil heart. The Bible says that God goes to and fro looking at men's hearts. This is all that matters to him as well. Other scriptures that come to mind are where your heart is, there will your treasure be also, and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Your heart dictates your actions and the path you travel in this life. It allows you to feel love for others and/or prevents you from doing so. Your heart is what gives us our humanity. Perhaps you think our humanity is trivial as well?
Still trivial, no matter how much God transforms your heart.
21 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrPerhaps I should have better defined what I meant by "subjective" and "objective". By moral truths being objective, I meant them as brute facts, existent irrespective of our conjectures. Is rape morally wrong in every scenario, or should it be rationalised via a specific system or morality i.e. subjective truth? Can every rape be objectively condemned from a quantifiable moral law, or should each case be scrutinised on its own merits? Are human rights and moral responsibilities brute facts, or merely the machinations of some cock-eyed philosophers bent on forcing their deliberations on the rest of humanity? If the atheist claims the absence of a moral law i.e. subjective morality, then surely the ethical theories collapse into mere subjective inclination, where one theory is no better than the other, the preference of pleasure no more justifiable than the preference of pain. If the atheist claims that there is indeed subjective morality -- that moral truths are brute facts – then that is where my question arises for ontological substantiation to merit such a stance.
How on Earth do you get that from the passage you've quoted above? In that passage I was identifying the sets of facts that, respective to each of the theories mentioned, are taken to be the subvenient base (ground, base, foundation, source, etc.) of morality. Identifying these sets of facts does not require presupposing the truth of any particular mo ...[text shortened]... ad some theoretical ethics.
EDIT: Did you intend to quote a different passage from my post?
21 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanCommon sense. Your heart refers to what is most important to you. It refers to both what you usually think about and your general attitude and motives towards those things. Therefore, the condition of your heart determaines who and what you become.
Evidence? How do you know this?
21 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr[/b][/b]So if I understand you correctly, God, immortality and freewill are only necessary for the realization of the highest good, or as Kant called it the summum bonum? So the Categorical Imperative would still stand irrespective of God, immortality and freewill?
Read this, from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
[b]The reality of freedom is only the first of Kant's three 'postulates of pure practical reason'; the other two are the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. Again Kant's argument is that, as the first Critique showed, neither of these can be proven by theoretical metaphysics, but they c ty is dependent on God.
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
21 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseBut why can there be no "brute" moral facts without God, just as there are facts about whether things are beautiful, etc?
Perhaps I should have better defined what I meant by "subjective" and "objective". By moral truths being objective, I meant them as brute facts, existent irrespective of our conjectures. Is rape morally wrong in every scenario, or should it be rationalised via a specific system or morality i.e. subjective truth? Can every rape be objectively condemned from ...[text shortened]... then that is where my question arises for ontological substantiation to merit such a stance.
Why not see ethics as an attempt to describe rather than prescribe?
Why is this a problem for the atheist?
21 Mar 06
Originally posted by dottewellI'm not saying that they cannot be "brute" moral facts without God. I'm merely saying that the atheist, unlike the theist has some ontological problems claiming them to be such.
But why can there be no "brute" moral facts without God, just as there are facts about whether things are beautiful, etc?
Why not see ethics as an attempt to describe rather than prescribe?
Why is this a problem for the atheist?
21 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseNo ontological problem at all. They exist, like any fact (e.g. that the sky is blue).
I'm not saying that they cannot be "brute" moral facts without God. I'm merely saying that the atheist, unlike the theist has some ontological problems claiming them to be such.
21 Mar 06
Originally posted by dottewellThe sky being blue is as a result while light passing though specific gaseous concentrations. Ergo, the blueness of the sky is perceived by the sense of sight. The atheist claims brute fact only by the empirical perception of the senses, so how would he/she perceive morality?
No ontological problem at all. They exist, like any fact (e.g. that the sky is blue).
Rational thinking possesses exactly the same ontological problem to the atheist. Since rational thought is merely the result of atoms arranged within the brain, how could an atheist ontologically justify the validity of his/her own rationality?
21 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitoseWhy would one need to "justify" such a thing?? Do you think by explaining why the sky is usually blue, we are "justifying" it?
The sky being blue is as a result while light passing though specific gaseous concentrations. Ergo, the blueness of the sky is perceived by the sense of sight. The atheist claims brute fact only by the empirical perception of the senses, so how would he/she perceive morality?
Rational thinking possesses exactly the same ontological problem to the atheist ...[text shortened]... n the brain, how could an atheist ontologically justify the validity of his/her own rationality?
21 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseI am struggling to understand what you are asking here. Are you now saying if rationality is only a collection of atoms reacting together then we can't "justify" it's (putative) existence?
Rational thinking possesses exactly the same ontological problem to the atheist. Since rational thought is merely the result of atoms arranged within the brain, how could an atheist ontologically justify the validity of his/her own rationality?
And are you also saying that the atheist only believes in facts that he can perceive? What about mathematical facts?
Could you clarify?
21 Mar 06
Originally posted by dottewellMathematics was developed to help explain the world, it's not as abstract as people like to pretend. Since you can check that your arithmetic gets the right answer (or a sufficiently good one for you to do whatever it is that you want to do) the notion that a mathematical fact cannot be observed is wrong, otherwise it doesn't count as a fact but a supposition.
And are you also saying that the atheist only believes in facts that he can perceive? What about mathematical facts?
21 Mar 06
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThat may be so; I don't know. What I want to understand is what it means to claim, as H did above, that "The atheist claims brute fact only by the empirical perception of the senses" - and why it means the atheist is not entitled to moral facts.
Mathematics was developed to help explain the world, it's not as abstract as people like to pretend. Since you can check that your arithmetic gets the right answer (or a sufficiently good one for you to do whatever it is that you want to do) the notion that a mathematical fact cannot be observed is wrong, otherwise it doesn't count as a fact but a supposition.