Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 1:34 pm
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 10:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 7:32 pm
I'd actually like to see somebody do that. People talk about it, but they never demonstrate it.
Take any precept you like. Let's say...a permission to do something we'd all concede is "good," such as, say:
- Saving a child's life.
Giving to charity.
Feeding the hungry.
Telling the truth.
Or, let's take a prohibition of some kind, one we'd all likely agree with, such as:
- No slavery.
No murder.
No genocide.
No rape.
Show that any such permission or prohibition really can have a basis other than God. I'm keen to see how you'd get that done.
Whatever has an even number of letters will be considered to be moral. Whatever has an odd number of letters will be considered to be immoral. Numbers will be considered amoral.
Seriously? C'mon...give us a real answer. This is a serious question. After all, if a theory of morality cannot even support a single precept that you and I regard as clear and reasonable, then how good can that theory be?
Yes, seriously. Odds-and-evens is as worthy a basis for morality as any other arbitrary standards are, including the arbitrary standards that you have championed, which is dependent on the supposed but never proved existence of God.
Speaking of what you and I regard as clear and reasonable, here’s an experiment to show just how much you and I agree about morality. Please answer the following for me:
Abortion—is it morally acceptable or not?
IVF—moral or not?
Capital Punishment—moral or not?
For me the answers are acceptable, moral, moral. Let’s compare and find out how much we agree.[/quote]
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 4:51 pm
But as objective morality does not exist, you have made a claim that God does not exist.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 7:32 pm
That's a logical error, I'm afraid. It's rather like saying, "If there's no hay in the barn, then the barn didn't exist." Morality is not the totality of God, obviously. And you can easily imagine how a "god" like that of the Islamists, the Gnostics or the Deists could exist while no objective morality existed.
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 4:51 pm
What you said is like saying,
“If A then B”
“Not B”
Therefore Not A.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 1:34 pm
You're jumping to an incorrect assumption.
I'm not making the case that because Subjectivism is false, therefore objectivism is true. I've pointed out repeatedly that the road from Subjectivism leads not to objectivism at all, but to Nihilism. The choice is between objectivism and NO morality. But I've so far never suggested that Nihilism isn't an option. In fact, as Nietzsche saw, it's the ONLY rational option left to somebody who has already dismissed belief in God...and I am honouring that fact.
Want to be a Nihilist? You can, logically speaking. And you'll be, at least, rationally consistent. Want to be a Subjectivist? You can...but not with logic. You'll be irrational and inconsistent.
The case for objective morality cannot be made without the premise that it's at least possible that God exists. If you think it can, then I'm wide open to seeing how it could be. And if you can do it, you'll be the greatest moral philosopher the world has ever seen...greater than Kant, Mill, Bentham, Hume, Hegel, Nietzsche, Camus, Aristotle, Aquinas, Rorty, Foucault...your career and reputation will be secured forever, you can be certain. For a grounds for morality that does not require belief in God has long been the "unholy grail" of moral philosophy. The man who finds it will be a secular hero.
All that you’ve said in the previous 4 paragraphs has nothing to do with your ignorance of simple predicate logic. But don’t be embarrassed. Don’t feel you’re being attacked. There’s no shame in ignorance.
See if you can follow this: in the modus example above, let A = God exists, and let B = objective morality exists. This means, as you unwittingly claimed, that if God exists then there must be an objective morality that exists. But as you can see from our experiment above, or at least from the disagreements of many others across a significant divide, there cannot be an objective form of morality that exists at all. Since there can be no objective morality, and since there must be an objective morality if God exists, there can also be no God that exists. QED.
“Immanuel Can" wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 1:34 pm
So have a go. You've got everything to win, and nothing to lose.
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 4:51 pm
Morality isn’t necessary.
“Immanuel Can" wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 1:34 pm
It isn't necessary if you're going to live as a total hermit. It is, if you want to be in a society. If even one other person enters your life, so does concern for morality. You have to ask yourself,
"What do I owe this person, and what does she owe to me?" Otherwise, you can't live in the same area.
Morality isn’t necessary for the essence of a human. One can survive and procreate without morals. Power would then replace morality as the measure of right and wrong. Sad, but true.