Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:08 pm We have a growing population therefore good is more than evil.

If murder were the only "evil," this might be a reasonable way to argue. But it's not, and it's not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:50 pm

Ok, what is your argument then?

I wasn't making one. You asked me a question, and I answered it. You posited a dichotomy between "good" and "what God commands," and I said the answer was "both."

That's where we left off.

So God has no argument in favor of morality?

You want GOD's "argument"? You think God "argues"?

How about you? Do you know any argument in favor of morality?

Sure. But first, let's see if we can live without it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:25 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:08 pm We have a growing population therefore good is more than evil.

If murder were the only "evil," this might be a reasonable way to argue. But it's not, and it's not.

Murder is the edge of evil.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:50 pm
I wasn't making one. You asked me a question, and I answered it. You posited a dichotomy between "good" and "what God commands," and I said the answer was "both."

That's where we left off.

So God has no argument in favor of morality?

You want GOD's "argument"? You think God "argues"?

He should have an argument in explaining any thing. What would be the content of God's mind otherwise? He is omniscient.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:25 pm

How about you? Do you know any argument in favor of morality?

Sure. But first, let's see if we can live without it.

I am interested to see your argument.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:44 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:33 am Morality as defined is the establishment of absolute moral principles to act as a guide for an effective Moral and Ethics System.

I have already argued how we can justify an absolute moral maxim such is,
"no human can kill another human" period! no ifs and no buts and this is to be used as a guide to the system and not an enforcement.

Despite Hume's no ought from is, I have already presented the argument in earlier posts [have to search for it] in reconciling want [is] to shall [ought].
The establishment of such an 'ought' as an absolute moral maxim is to be used as a guide within the Moral and Ethics system iteratively in heuristic mode.

Here is the argument in the other thread;
viewtopic.php?p=421197#p421197
the above is supported by various posts in counter to the opposition raised.

How could you justify the survival of human species is good?

What is "good" in the perspective of morality?

• In most contexts, the concept of good denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions.
  Good is generally considered to be the opposite of evil, and is of interest in the study of morality, ethics, religion and philosophy.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good

Re Morality as above, if survival of the human species [humanity] is not good, then it is evil.
Since the existence of humanity is evil, humanity should exterminate itself [possible with all the Nukes available].
This mean every human will be killed, i.e. meaning,
every individual human will want to be killed.

But the above is not the case with reality, i.e.
no human want to be killed [evil action] if all are polled.
(those who agree to be killed are psychiatric cases).

Therefore the survival of the human species must be good.

Related to the above, note,
Goodness and Morality in Biology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good#Good ... in_biology

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:25 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:08 pm We have a growing population therefore good is more than evil.

If murder were the only "evil," this might be a reasonable way to argue. But it's not, and it's not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:50 pm
I wasn't making one. You asked me a question, and I answered it. You posited a dichotomy between "good" and "what God commands," and I said the answer was "both."

That's where we left off.

So God has no argument in favor of morality?

You want GOD's "argument"? You think God "argues"?

How about you? Do you know any argument in favor of morality?

Sure. But first, let's see if we can live without it.

Prove God exists as real first before you begin any of your theistic-based arguments else every premise that follow is non-sequitor, i.e. false.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:37 pm Murder is the edge of evil.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:53 am Prove God exists as real first before you begin any of your theistic-based arguments else every premise that follow is non-sequitor, i.e. false.

Actually, what I've been trying to talk about is not Theism at all, but Atheism.

Nobody seems willing to say what we all know: that Atheism requires Materialism to be true, and if Materialism is true then this word with which the OP started ("EVIL!!!!!!!!!") has no meaning.

I have to wonder why Atheists are so afraid of looking steadily at the implications of their own ideology...could it be that they actually don't believe it, and don't even LIKE it at all? Could it simply be it's the "uncomfortable bedfellow" they've taken in, in order to avoid thinking about God, but that he came with a flaming case of moral nihilism?

Nietzsche thought so. I've found nothing so far to convince me that Nietzsche was wrong about that.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:48 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:44 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:33 am Morality as defined is the establishment of absolute moral principles to act as a guide for an effective Moral and Ethics System.

I have already argued how we can justify an absolute moral maxim such is,
"no human can kill another human" period! no ifs and no buts and this is to be used as a guide to the system and not an enforcement.

Despite Hume's no ought from is, I have already presented the argument in earlier posts [have to search for it] in reconciling want [is] to shall [ought].
The establishment of such an 'ought' as an absolute moral maxim is to be used as a guide within the Moral and Ethics system iteratively in heuristic mode.

Here is the argument in the other thread;
viewtopic.php?p=421197#p421197
the above is supported by various posts in counter to the opposition raised.

How could you justify the survival of human species is good?

What is "good" in the perspective of morality?

In most contexts, the concept of good denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions.

Up to here you just define good in term of action which we should make but you didn't the type of action.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:48 am Good is generally considered to be the opposite of evil, and is of interest in the study of morality, ethics, religion and philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good[/list]

These are circular.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:48 am Re Morality as above, if survival of the human species [humanity] is not good, then it is evil...

You didn't yet define good.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:36 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:37 pm Murder is the edge of evil.

Huh? Where is your argument?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Nobody seems willing to say what we all know : that Atheism requires Materialism to be true

Explain how materialism and morality are incompatible
Explain why the mental and physical are entirely separate categories
Explain how if morality is not a mental concept where it comes from

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:53 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:36 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:37 pm Murder is the edge of evil.

Huh? Where is your argument?

I haven't got a clue what you mean. "Edge"?

So how could I "argue" it?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:04 pm Explain how materialism and morality are incompatible

If materialism is true, then everything...including us...is just "materials." That means we are entirely contingent entities, drifting without objective purpose through a universe completely indifferent to us.

And we're animals. As animals, we have no moral duties. Lions are not "evil" for killing zebras or each other (they do both, actually). We're not even "evil" if we strip the planet of all life. For who's around to say, "You shouldn't do that"? Genocides? Not evil: just another way people can choose to behave. Rape? Just fine, if you can get away with it. Murder? No such thing, really...just another contingent choice for purposeless creatures.

Nietzsche saw all this. And he was brave enough to say it. But the Atheists who have come after him have mostly not had his courage.

Explain how if morality is not a mental concept where it comes from

According to Materialism, there are no "mental" phenomena. We might think there are, but they are just another arrangement of "materials": the brain playing tricks called "mind." They have no objective reality.

So when you say, "I don't like murder," that's just because the molecules in your skull happened to line up that way. And when Stalin says, "Well, I do!" then that's also because of the arrangement of molecules in his skull -- no more. And neither one is more "moral" than the other, because "moral" refers to nothing but a delusion.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:53 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:36 am

Huh? Where is your argument?

I haven't got a clue what you mean. "Edge"?

So how could I "argue" it?

I mean it is the worst evil.

You are a Christian who believes that the concept of objective morality comes from God . But belief is a function of the brain which is a physical organ and so you need materialism to be just as true for you as it is for atheists . You may say that God is the source of your morality rather than your brain . But you believe that God in theory at least physically interacts with the Universe . Which means he can be detected . He may also be metaphysical but that state cannot be detected . And so once again you need materialism to be just as true for you as it is for atheists

You also need to explain why some aspects of your moral code and my moral code are identical even though you believe in God and I do
not believe in him . Why do I for example accept half of the Ten Commandments in principle when that figure should in reality be zero

And referencing Nietzsche is entirely irrelevant here because man has been engaging in mass destruction since civilisation began
It may have become more so during the twentieth century but that was just carrying on with what was already happening anyway

"You...to explain why some aspects of your moral code and my moral code are identical even though you believe in God and I do not believe in him. Why do I for example accept half of the Ten Commandments in principle when that figure should in reality be zero."

If a Creator exists, your belief in Him isn't necessary (that is: He exists even if you think He doesn't, or don't think about Him at all). And: if you're a product of the Creator then natural law (objective morality) is a function of 'you' regardless of your (non)belief (that is: you aren't tabula rasa).

Free will means I dont have to accept either his existence or natural law
So even if he does exist I am still free to think or do what ever I want to