Christian Morality

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 1:51 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 6:02 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:08 pm

Ah, but you're begging the question: is this world a teleological entity, designed by God, or is it a place of mere materials? If the world has a moral status pertaining to action X created into it, then the premise ISN'T non-moral. :shock:
Begging the question means using the conclusion to support a premise.
Well, sort of: it means that you are "packaging" your conclusion into your premises. You're referring to "circularity" or "redundancy" instead.

Here, your conclusion is that there are no objective moral values available from empirical facts, which bundles into your assumption the belief that the world is not a "moral" place. It's merely "factual," so to speak. And if that were true, then your conclusion would follow...

But that premise, that there are no moral facts, stands itself in need of showing. For if God exists, then the facts are themselves morally-laden already.

To simplify: if human beings are the products of time plus chance, then "murder is wrong" is only a contingent judment based on some society's preference; but it's not objectively true. But if human beings are creations of God for His glory, then to "murder" one is to act in rebellion against God, to blaspheme against His intentions, to lay hands on His property, to defy His will, and to seek to destroy His purposes. This cannot be regarded as an act lacking moral freight, then.
...the claim that a god created the universe with a moral purpose is not a moral assertion - it's a factual claim, with a truth-value: 'the world has a moral status pertaining to action X created into it' makes no moral judgement about that putative fact. And, to repeat, a non-moral premise cannot entail a moral conclusion.
No, that's your assumption. Others believe things are quite different than you do. God's moral nature is the frame within which all factual actions take place. This world is His, by right.
...moral premises (claims) are our own creations.

No, this won't work. If they are our own creations, then they are totally contingent, optional and non-binding. They have, in fact, no "oughtness" at all, other than the prudential "ought" of us not getting caught. But nothing moral is entailed in prudence, and prudence itself is each man's judgment call.

So wife-beating and pedophelia are not, by way of such a view, actually wrong. They're just temporarily out-of-favour in some societies. But nothing intrinsic to treating wives or children in any way at all makes it "wrong" to abuse them. Morals are mere arbitrary rulings, with no actual force, and can be changed at will. For example, holding little girls down and carving up their genitals is an esteemed tradition in Somalia; and there's nothing you can say against it. Killing Uighurs and starving cities are the new traditions in China...again, you have nothing to say.

So you really have no need of "moral" language at all, in that case. It's not referring to anything real. Better to use sociological-descriptive terms, instead. It's more honest -- though, of course, honesty itself is no longer "moral," then.
Please address the logical point: a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion. Because, in its various forms, your premise - about a creator god with a certain nature and purposes for the universe - is non-moral. So it wouldn't matter even if your invented god actually did exist; there would still be no moral facts, and morality wouldn't be objective. The is/ought barrier is insuperable.

Meanwhile, the claim that, if it isn't a fact that X is morally wrong, then X isn't, and can't be said to be morally wrong, is too ridiculous to bother with.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 3:00 pm Please address the logical point: a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion.
Sure. Here we go.

If there all things were merely "non-moral premises," and more importantly, if there was no such thing as a moral premise, you'd be right. Hume would also be right.

But that -- I'll just say, "skips an important prior question" -- and that question is, are there moral premises? And that means, are there entities in the world from which moral consideration is inseparable?

And the answer to that is "Yes," I would suggest.

Moral premises entail moral conclusions.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 3:31 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 3:00 pm Please address the logical point: a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion.
Sure. Here we go.

If there all things were merely "non-moral premises," and more importantly, if there was no such thing as a moral premise, you'd be right. Hume would also be right.

But that -- I'll just say, "skips an important prior question" -- and that question is, are there moral premises? And that means, are there entities in the world from which moral consideration is inseparable?

And the answer to that is "Yes," I would suggest.

Moral premises entail moral conclusions.
So you agree that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion. And, of course, a moral premise is merely a moral assertion, such as 'X is morally right/wrong'. So now, please demonstrate the existence of a so-called moral fact. Just one example will make your case.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 5:02 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 3:31 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 3:00 pm Please address the logical point: a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion.
Sure. Here we go.

If there all things were merely "non-moral premises," and more importantly, if there was no such thing as a moral premise, you'd be right. Hume would also be right.

But that -- I'll just say, "skips an important prior question" -- and that question is, are there moral premises? And that means, are there entities in the world from which moral consideration is inseparable?

And the answer to that is "Yes," I would suggest.

Moral premises entail moral conclusions.
So you agree that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion.
Did you miss the red? I said "if"...then it "would" be the case that...

But it's NOT the case that that is so.
And, of course, a moral premise is merely a moral assertion, such as 'X is morally right/wrong'.
Well, that's the thing you need to establish, of course...namely, that even in cases of abusing human beings, like slavery, rape, pedophelia or female circumcision, there is no morality entailed in any premise about them, and morality is just a human invention...one that refers to nothing objective...so a delusion.

So please now tell me: how did you prove to yourself that there are no moral premises, that human beings are not inherently entities of moral vaue, and do you believe that slavery, rape, pedophelia and female circumcision are all morally-indifferent matters?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 5:12 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 5:02 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 3:31 pm
Sure. Here we go.

If there all things were merely "non-moral premises," and more importantly, if there was no such thing as a moral premise, you'd be right. Hume would also be right.

But that -- I'll just say, "skips an important prior question" -- and that question is, are there moral premises? And that means, are there entities in the world from which moral consideration is inseparable?

And the answer to that is "Yes," I would suggest.

Moral premises entail moral conclusions.
So you agree that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion.
Did you miss the red? I said "if"...then it "would" be the case that...

But it's NOT the case that that is so.
And, of course, a moral premise is merely a moral assertion, such as 'X is morally right/wrong'.
Well, that's the thing you need to establish, of course...namely, that even in cases of abusing human beings, like slavery, rape, pedophelia or female circumcision, there is no morality entailed in any premise about them, and morality is just a human invention...one that refers to nothing objective...so a delusion.

So please now tell me: how did you prove to yourself that there are no moral premises, that human beings are not inherently entities of moral vaue, and do you believe that slavery, rape, pedophelia and female circumcision are all morally-indifferent matters?
I don't understand the relevance of your conditional. Whether there are indeed moral premises - and of ocurse there are - isn't the point. What matters is the logical impossibility of a non-moral premise entailing a moral conclusion. And you said you agree with that. But if you've changed your mind, please give an example that isn't a non sequitur. Have you changed your mind?

Btw, a premise is just an assertion of any kind: 'this is the case'. And our argument is about the status or function of moral assertions, such as 'rape is morally wrong'. Calling it a premise doesn't determine its status or function - for example, whether it's factual or non-factual.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:24 pm Whether there are indeed moral premises - and of ocurse there are - isn't the point.
Actually, it is.

It means "objective values" attach to particular actions and objects. It is, in an objective sense, wrong to do the things I've listed to a human being (rape, pedophelia, etc.) by virtue of what that "thing" is...not just a property belonging to the Creator, and properly assigned to His uses, like an inanimate object would be, but a being assigned to end up in fellowship with God for eternity.

It's wrong to harm such beings or violate the purposes for which each was purposefully created; and among the ways to harm them are the above.
Btw, a premise is just an assertion of any kind: 'this is the case'.
Yes. But so?

That fails to address the question of whether or not "this is the case" can be fulfilled by a moral quality. It is the case that human beings are made for fellowship with God. To use them as if they were not is an insult and a sacrilege. Sacrilige and insults against the Creator are evil. Therefore, using human beings that way is evil.
And our argument is about the status or function of moral assertions, such as 'rape is morally wrong'. Calling it a premise doesn't determine its status or function - for example, whether it's factual or non-factual.
Yes, it does...if there are such things as moral facts. And there are. There are specific purposes for which God created entities. Those are facts; but they are also divine values.

For the fact is that things are as God values them. God is not merely a contingent entity, or even one among many limited entities. He is the lone self-existence and Supreme Entity, and also the Creator and Assigner of everything its objective value. This also makes Him the ultimate Judge of the value of everything.

Hume is thus defeated; but only in the Theistic worldviews.

You won't agree, of course. I recognize that. But you could try to see it as Theists see it, and realize (if you're inclined to) that their not seeing it your way is not obdurate or irrational but rational, rational within the terms of their ontological assumptions. And you might find that insight helpful, even if you still decide not to agree.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 1:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 4:25 am Note I have presented my arguments here;
It is impossible for God to exists as real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
They're lame. They're erroneous. They're no good. Anybody can see that, and no reasonable person would find them compelling -- or coherent, even.

But you don't believe that, and nobody can convince you of that, apparently, by dint of any amount of argument or evidence.

And we've been through all that before, so we won't do it again here.
Noises again.

I did not expect you to give me your counters here, you can refresh your points and represent them rationally therein i.e.

It is impossible for God to exists as real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:30 am ...you can refresh your points ...
My points are already made. So are everybody else's.

You're not listening. I'm not wasting any more time.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:24 pm
What matters is the logical impossibility of a non-moral premise entailing a moral conclusion.

Btw, a premise is just an assertion of any kind: 'this is the case'. And our argument is about the status or function of moral assertions, such as 'rape is morally wrong'. Calling it a premise doesn't determine its status or function - for example, whether it's factual or non-factual.
It is pathetic that you are stuck in a paradigm that is so dogmatic, just like the defunct logical positivists once was. Besides you are a "p cannot be not-p" logical dogmatist.

You can't be that ignorant to know the non-X premise can end up with a X conclusion in reality. What you are ignorant of is 'System Theory'.

For example mathematics "premises" [theories, formulas, etc.] can end up as non-mathematical conclusions if and only if they are processed as inputs within a specific framework and System.
For example mathematics is prevalent in Physics and mathematical premises from a mathematic FSK are inputted into a Physics FSK to be processed as Physics conclusions.

It is the same with scientific premises, truths, facts from the scientific FSK which are inputted in different FSK that end with their respective conclusions.
Example, the truth of DNA from the scientific FSK could be inputted into a legal FSK which critically contributed to a legal truths, .e.g. in a rape or murder case where the DNA evidence contributed a weight of 90% to the judgement or truth.

Thus scientific premises and other premises [IS] from their respective FSK can be inputted into a Moral FSK to end up with moral conclusions where 'ought' are its critical elements.

It is the same with various empirical evidences from various FSK being inputted into a Theological Moral FSK to arrive at Theological [Divine] Moral conclusions [facts, truths, etc.].
The problem with the theological moral FSK is, it is not as a credible FSK [say 10/100] in contrast to the scientific FSK [80/100] which is the 'gold' standard at present.

But for Divine moral conclusion, i.e. "Thou Ought-Not to Kill" [humans] theists [founders] got it right intuitively [from experiences and intuitions] which is in alignment with the universal moral fact which I had arrived at via a credible [close to the gold standard] moral FSK.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Mon Apr 25, 2022 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:30 am ...you can refresh your points ...
My points are already made. So are everybody else's.
You're not listening. I'm not wasting any more time.
While I had presented my views against all counters [like yours and others] systematically, the rest and others had ended as material in a dumpsite which is typical of most thread. So it will be good for you to collect, clean and represent them rationally.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 9:07 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:24 pm Whether there are indeed moral premises - and of ocurse there are - isn't the point.
Actually, it is.

It means "objective values" attach to particular actions and objects. It is, in an objective sense, wrong to do the things I've listed to a human being (rape, pedophelia, etc.) by virtue of what that "thing" is...not just a property belonging to the Creator, and properly assigned to His uses, like an inanimate object would be, but a being assigned to end up in fellowship with God for eternity.

It's wrong to harm such beings or violate the purposes for which each was purposefully created; and among the ways to harm them are the above.
The main purpose for a divine FSK [framework and System of Knowledge, etc.] is soteriological, i.e. escaping from hellfire and to live in heaven eternally. This is driven by a terrible painful cognitive dissonance :twisted: to seek consonance in an illusory God.

There was no Jesus [son of God] nor there is a God.

Note my post above;
It is the same with various empirical evidences from various FSK being inputted into a Christian Theological Moral FSK to arrive at Theological [Divine] Moral conclusions [facts, truths, etc.].
The problem with the theological moral FSK is, it is not as a credible FSK [say 10/100.] in contrast to the scientific FSK [80/100] which is the 'gold' standard at present.

But for Divine moral conclusion, i.e. "Thou Ought-Not to Kill" [humans] the founders of Christianity got it right intuitively [from experiences and intuitions] which is in alignment with the universal moral fact which I had arrived at via a credible [close to the gold standard] moral FSK.

Actually this moral fact [a reality within the self, consciousness, brain, DNA] 'thou shall not kill humans' is so common sense where all normal humans can intuitively sense it.

This is why 'thou shall not kill humans' is enacted as a criminal law in all sovereign nations. Such laws [with exceptions] are legal matters not moral matters.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 4:08 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:30 am ...you can refresh your points ...
My points are already made. So are everybody else's.
You're not listening. I'm not wasting any more time.
While I had presented my views against all counters...
"Counters"? Are you playing tiddlywinks? :shock:

No, you'd just outed your presuppositions, then insisted upon them against all objections. That's quite a different thing.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 9:07 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:24 pm Whether there are indeed moral premises - and of ocurse there are - isn't the point.
Actually, it is.

It means "objective values" attach to particular actions and objects. It is, in an objective sense, wrong to do the things I've listed to a human being (rape, pedophelia, etc.) by virtue of what that "thing" is...not just a property belonging to the Creator, and properly assigned to His uses, like an inanimate object would be, but a being assigned to end up in fellowship with God for eternity.

It's wrong to harm such beings or violate the purposes for which each was purposefully created; and among the ways to harm them are the above.
Btw, a premise is just an assertion of any kind: 'this is the case'.
Yes. But so?

That fails to address the question of whether or not "this is the case" can be fulfilled by a moral quality. It is the case that human beings are made for fellowship with God. To use them as if they were not is an insult and a sacrilege. Sacrilige and insults against the Creator are evil. Therefore, using human beings that way is evil.
And our argument is about the status or function of moral assertions, such as 'rape is morally wrong'. Calling it a premise doesn't determine its status or function - for example, whether it's factual or non-factual.
Yes, it does...if there are such things as moral facts. And there are. There are specific purposes for which God created entities. Those are facts; but they are also divine values.

For the fact is that things are as God values them. God is not merely a contingent entity, or even one among many limited entities. He is the lone self-existence and Supreme Entity, and also the Creator and Assigner of everything its objective value. This also makes Him the ultimate Judge of the value of everything.

Hume is thus defeated; but only in the Theistic worldviews.

You won't agree, of course. I recognize that. But you could try to see it as Theists see it, and realize (if you're inclined to) that their not seeing it your way is not obdurate or irrational but rational, rational within the terms of their ontological assumptions. And you might find that insight helpful, even if you still decide not to agree.
Again, I understand why you want to pile up factual assertions about your invented god. It's because you can't afford to recognise the blank fact of the is/ought barrier: a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion.

Rehearsing the unsubstantiated tenets of your faith just won't do in a serious philosophical discussion. And one epithet is particularly telling: the Creator and Assignor of everything its objective value [sic].

So your argument is: there is objective value, because a god is the creator and assignor of objective value to everything. (Seriously?)

And, anyway, your use of the expression 'objective value' says it all. There can be no such thing. The expression is incoherent. If things are as a god values them, the only fact is that a god values them in that way. And that does not constitute moral objectivity. Here's the rub:

'This god thinks X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.'

Now, that is a logical non sequitur, and is therefore irrational. Hume is vindicated, and your defence of theistic moral objectivism is hopeless. But hey, theistic moral subjectivism is always available - if equally unable to provide any evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 6:07 am Again, I understand why you want to pile up factual assertions about your invented god.
Actually, I can see you don't.

You haven't figured out that Theists do not regard God as "invented." It seems like you cannot imagine anybody thinking in any way that you do not, so you are inclined to imagine they are operating in some kind of knowing bad-faith.

But we are not. We believe what we say.
It's because you can't afford to recognise the blank fact of the is/ought barrier: a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion.
Not at all. I have already admitted that IF you were right in your ontology, then morality would indeed be dead. I just believe your ontology is completely wrong.
So your argument is: there is objective value, because a god is the creator and assignor of objective value to everything.
Of course. There could be no one else to do it.
And, anyway, your use of the expression 'objective value' says it all. There can be no such thing.
That's assumptive on your part. I don't agree.

And I'm certain you'll find out that God doesn't agree with that either.
'This god thinks X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.'
No, that's not the argument at all.

It goes, "Everything that exists was created by God. He knows what He created things for, and what their actual value is. Nobody else created things, so they're guessing unless He tells them. But what He knows the purpose and value of something He created is, that's it."

But your alternative is this: Nobody created the universe, and nobody ever knows if or why rape, pedophelia, female circumcision or slavery are wrong, beyond the arbitrary declaration of some particular society or individual.

And that is why you've twice avoided answering the question about how you know these things are wrong. If your theory is correct, you actually have NO way of knowing that.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 10:06 pm But your alternative is this: Nobody created the universe, and nobody ever knows if or why rape, pedophelia, female circumcision or slavery are wrong, beyond the arbitrary declaration of some particular society or individual.

And that is why you've twice avoided answering the question about how you know these things are wrong. If your theory is correct, you actually have NO way of knowing that.
Peter Holmes will agree to the above, i.e. there is no way one can know with absoluteness which is right or wrong. That is why he insisted whatever is morality are merely opinions which can be anything.

OTOH, I argued there are moral facts, i.e. rape, pedophilia, female circumcision, slavery are wrong as a norm.
Since 10,000 years ago, there is definitely a trend against the above evil acts. This is driven by the inherent moral potential within all humans which is slowly unfolding. It is this drive that establish the ought-not-ness against the above evil acts as process via a system of morality.

You cannot banked on God which is illusory and is impossible to be real. God has nothing to do with morality-proper.

Note while your religious founders [Christianity] got rape, pedophilia, female circumcision right intuitively, they got it wrong with slavery where it is not condemned outright but condoned in some ways.

Meanwhile the Islamic religion [& its God] is condoning all sort of immoral and evil acts on non-believers.
Post Reply