22 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis claim is stupid.
If God never existed, then right and wrong become merely a matter of human convention.
Utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, virtue theory, intuitionism, and any number of other secular ethical theories are explicity commited to moral truths as not resulting from human convention.
This is, once again, an instance of the astounding level of ignorance displayed by theists when it comes to notions such as relativity vs. universality and subjectivity vs. objectivity.
Seriously, read a book on theoretical ethics before you presume to make such claims, 'cause they make you look like an idiot.
22 Jun 05
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdUnfortunetly if a religion attests all scripture is "inspired by god"
Although the debate has moved on before I could get to this, a couple of quick responses.
1) From now on, I’ll just let frogstomp do my research for me, since he is better and quicker at it than I am (and, as froggy knows, I do little r ...[text shortened]... erent religions act; it says nothing about the religion itself.
this becomes the word of God
8:1 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear not, neither be thou dismayed:take all the people of war with thee, and arise, go up to Ai: see, I have given into thy hand the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land: 8:2 And thou shalt do to Ai and her king as thou didst unto Jericho and her king: only the spoil thereof, and the cattle
thereof, shall ye take for a prey unto yourselves: lay thee an ambush
for the city behind it
and this is what they had didst unto Jericho:
6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and
woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompYep - same chap.
you must be thinking of another Aristotle
Aristotle
The greatest of heathen Philosophers, born at Stagira, a Grecian colony in the Thracian peninsula Chalcidice, 384 B.C.; died at Chalcis, in Euboea, 322 B.C.
Aristotle substituted the scientific tendency to examine first the phenomena of the real world around us and thence to reason to a ...[text shortened]... stood to be science, as distinct from philosophy
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm
22 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipperI need to think this through, but even a social contract requires some innate sense of right or wrong prior to the contract. This is what one might refer to as the "sense" or "spirit" of the contract/law (as opposed to just the "letter" of the contract/law). So, for instance, while a "contract" might be developed saying "Don't kill Bob, the wheat grower", the letter of the contract does not preclude, say, maiming or injuring Bob. The contract would still hold even if, say, a new wheat-grower named Tom were to relocate to the village.
You do not think it possible that humans (absent a God given sense of right and wrong) would not eventually develop a social contract of some sort? Perhaps only out of necessity at first, for instance: "Don;t kill bob, the wheat grower ...[text shortened]... may very well not be, I'm just thinking out loud.
TheSkipper
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrThe claim "Genocide is [morally] wrong under all circumstances, and can't be made morally permissible by fiat" does entail the existence of an absolute standard - because you are not saying "It is my opinion that genocide is wrong etc.". The absolute standard will, at the very least, contain the claim above, or some set of premises that can be used to deduce the claim above.
No, nothing in this claim entails the existence of any absolute standard of morality. The claim is simply that genocide is wrong under all circumstances, and can't be made morally permissible by fiat.
Why is it absolute?
Because, as the claim itself states, it holds "under all circumstances". Hence, it does not depend on the political situation, or the views of any individual, or the practices of a particular time etc.
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI can't really disagree with anything you claimed in your last as this conversation is annoyingly hypothetical. I guess my original claim would have been better understood if i simply said that I believe there is a host of reasons for not killing and hurting each other besides "God does not like it." This is particullarly true in an ancient scoiety where there are many fewer people and the absence of one is potentially much more devestating to a society than it is now.
I need to think this through, but even a social contract requires some innate sense of right or wrong prior to the contract. This is what one might refer to as the "sense" or "spirit" of the contract/law (as opposed to just the "letter" of the contract/law). So, for instance, while a "contract" might be developed saying "Don't kill Bo ...[text shortened]... act would still hold even if, say, a new wheat-grower named Tom were to relocate to the village.
As it stands now i think we could do with a few less people in the world today but then you have to decide which ones to kill and it is all a big hassle. 😉
Anyway, before long, the idea to not kill each other would develop into some sort of tradition (and we all know how much we humas LOVE tradition). It is not at all unreasonable to assume that through the eventual mixing of cultures and people the traditions would expand...before you know it some wise guy comes along and calls those traditions 'morals' and presto-chango you have morality without God.
Although, in reality, the wise guy in question was probably some sort of early missionary for his concept of God and decided to co-opt morality to add to his religion so that eons later religious types could claim it as their very own. Those wise gys are nothing if not clever. 😉
I'm not making any kind of a firm statement that this actually happened, in fact I don't have the slightest idea, but it seems as though it COULD have happened...maybe.
TheSkipper
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrAnd Joe Blow says, "you are wrong. Genocide is not wrong under all circumstances."
No, nothing in this claim entails the existence of any absolute standard of morality. The claim is simply that genocide is wrong under all circumstances, and can't be made morally permissible by fiat.
What makes you right and Joe Blow wrong? How did you come to your conclusion?
22 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiA) The Natural Law; B) By using reason and rational thought that human beings possess.
And Joe Blow says, "you are wrong. Genocide is not wrong under all circumstances."
What makes you right and Joe Blow wrong? How did you come to your conclusion?
Your argument proves too much; saying different people can reach incorrect conclusions on the Natural Law can be applied to your Divine Command theory as well. The Natural Law exists apart from individual moral judgments; it is a part of the natural world which Man perceives through reason like the Law of Gravity. The fact that some people may assert that the Law of Gravity would make objects move away from a gravitional source (they have an incorrect understanding) does not mean there is no Law of Gravity. Your argument is nonsense.
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrThanks for letting me know I look like an idiot. 🙂
This claim is stupid.
Utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, virtue theory, intuitionism, and any number of other secular ethical theories are explicity commited to moral truths as not resulting from human convention.
This is, once again, an instance of the astounding level of ignorance displayed by theists when it comes to notions such as relativity vs. ...[text shortened]... retical ethics before you presume to make such claims, 'cause they make you look like an idiot.
Back to the topic on hand, let's take Utilitarianism, for instance. The traditional view of utilitarianism is that "the right act is that ... [which] probably or actually produces the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness in the world at large" (Runes. Dictionary of Philosophy. p.578.). Now the obvious question is - why pleasure/happiness? Why not pain/sorrow? Another obvious question - why the world at large? Why not just the individual?
If we exclude some kind of Eternal, Absolute moral code that states that these are the right ends of action, all we're left with is human convention for both of these. Now, utilitarianism may not be technically subjective (because it does not depend on the views of the actor in the situation), however the philosophy is built off an arbitrary and subjective selection of moral end (pleasure/happiness of the world at large) by the human philosopher in question. Whatever process of judgment the philosopher used to derive the moral end for his theory may be replicated in another culture at another time and need not produce the same result (i.e. moral end of pleasure/happiness for the world at large). Indeed, more modern theories of utilitarianism do hold that other things besides pleasure are good (Runes. p.579.). Whichever theory of utilitarianism is in vogue would be based on whichever moral end is in vogue at the time - hence would result from human convention. Hence, the moral truths of any particular theory of utilitarianism would result from the human conventions of the time at which the theory was formulated.
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNatural law is unreliable - where is it written down? How does one know natural law? Are you saying "you just know" like magic?
A) The Natural Law; B) By using reason and rational thought that human beings possess.
Your argument proves too much; saying different people can reach incorrect conclusions on the Natural Law can be applied to your Divine Command theory as well. The Natural Law exists apart from individual moral judgments; it is a part of the natural ...[text shortened]... an incorrect understanding) does not mean there is no Law of Gravity. Your argument is nonsense.