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

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 7:58 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:59 am
Consensus is that he wasn't. His is-ought problem remains unresolved.

If you're unfamiliar with it, how about this article from a past issue of PN? https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Thoughts_on_Oughts

(It also contains the quotation you asked for, I might add.)
Hume's 'no ought from is' [NOFI] was targeted at Christianity's Moral System.
If you agrees Hume was right, then, you accept his condemnation of the Christian's Moral System.

The point was Hume during his time was dealing with a very limited Framework and System of Knowledge and he had arrived at his NOFI conclusion based on limited knowledge which he admitted.
If you read Hume's work thoroughly he readily admitted he was working with a very incomplete knowledge with many of the jigsaw pieces missing especially those of the neurosciences, evolution, psychology, etc.

Thus for anyone to bank too heavily on Hume's NOFI, that is based on bankrupt ideas.

At present we have sufficient knowledge to prove Hume was too hasty and wrong re NOFI relative to his time.
I don't believe Hume [intelligent and rational as he was] will stick to his NOFI if he were to be alive today.
Not so. No amount of knowledge of what is the case can entail a conclusion as to what should be the case. So new knowledge makes no difference. We can and do appeal to facts to explain and justify our moral opinions - but they remain opinions.
On what justifications, credibility and authority is your above claims true?
It is merely based on your reliance on the words [agreement] of a bunch of 'analytic' philosophers improvising upon the ideas of the earlier condemned logical positivists.
Show me convincing justifications your point is sound?

Note the following principles re 'Knowledge'.
1. There is no absolute knowledge.
2. All knowledge [truths, facts] must be conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
3. Scientific truths, facts and knowledge based on the scientific FSK is the most credible.
4. Where moral truths, facts and knowledge are similar to the scientific FSK, then such moral facts has a certain degree of reasonable credibility.
We can and do appeal to facts to explain and justify our moral opinions - but they remain opinions.
You are begging the question here.
When we appeal to facts to explain and justify a hypothesis [opinion] within a credible FSK, they are then facts specific to the FSK.
As such, scientific facts started as conjectures [opinions, hypothesis] but when justified via the scientific FSK. But the irony is scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.

Similarly moral facts [my version] started as conjectures [opinions, hypothesis] but when justified via the Moral FSK. But the irony is moral facts are also at best 'polished conjectures'.

Generally, most moral claims and opinions started as opinions and remained opinions but not in the case of my claims of moral facts as justified above.
Show me how is my claim wrong?
If you insist my claim of moral facts are wrong, then you are also claiming currently justified scientific facts are wrong.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 7:58 am Hume's 'no ought from is' [NOFI] was targeted at Christianity's Moral System.
Sorry: that's incorrect.

If you read the quotation, you'll see that. He never makes any condition of religion, either way. Hume was an Atheist. He just thought the claim was obvious in all cases, because for him, no religion was even real.
Read the passage only?
It's enough to prove the point. Read more, if you need to.
Hume critiqued 'miracles' and the self [soul] very strongly
"Very strongly?" No. He was a cynic who used 'strong' rhetoric to be cynical...that's all. And his is-ought criticism was about empirical facts, and is essentially secular. He wasn't even speaking of religion, in that case. Go and read, and you'll see.
At present we have sufficient knowledge to prove Hume was too hasty and wrong

I'm sorry to contradict, but that's also false, actually.
What is your justifications?
Very simple. Such a proof does not exist.

If you think anybody...yourself included...has a disproof of the Is-ought problem within a secular worldview, then go ahead and give it. It's been tried repeatedly, by some very good philosophers, and they've all failed.

If you can succeed, they'll give you the Nobel Prize. Guaranteed. Because if you ever solved that one, you'd have provided the world with a universal key to morality.

Do you have such a key? Didn't think so.

Didn't you read the article? You should. It covers all this.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 5:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:08 pm
Sorry: that's incorrect.

If you read the quotation, you'll see that. He never makes any condition of religion, either way. Hume was an Atheist. He just thought the claim was obvious in all cases, because for him, no religion was even real.
Read the passage only?
It's enough to prove the point. Read more, if you need to.
Hume critiqued 'miracles' and the self [soul] very strongly
"Very strongly?" No. He was a cynic who used 'strong' rhetoric to be cynical...that's all. And his is-ought criticism was about empirical facts, and is essentially secular. He wasn't even speaking of religion, in that case. Go and read, and you'll see.

I'm sorry to contradict, but that's also false, actually.
What is your justifications?
Very simple. Such a proof does not exist.

If you think anybody...yourself included...has a disproof of the Is-ought problem within a secular worldview, then go ahead and give it. It's been tried repeatedly, by some very good philosophers, and they've all failed.

If you can succeed, they'll give you the Nobel Prize. Guaranteed. Because if you ever solved that one, you'd have provided the world with a universal key to morality.

Do you have such a key? Didn't think so.

Didn't you read the article? You should. It covers all this.
I have read that long ago and save it in a file for analysis amongst the 70+ files and books I have on the "No Ought from Is" issue.

Note his points;
In contrast to all this, as Joseph Kaipuyil has observed, “always, ontology precedes ethics, both in theory and in practice.” (Critical Ontology, 2002, p.28.)
What he is saying is that morality is based not on just any kind of neutral observations, but rather on what we believe to be true about the basic nature of reality.

Moral conclusions begin with fundamental premises about existence.

For example, if we believe in the existence of some kind of Supreme Being (and most particularly, one concerned with morality) then it becomes reasonable to speak of a supreme moral order reflecting this Being’s identity, character and expressed wishes, or perhaps with natural laws established by that Being.

Not only so, but on this basis appeals may be made by individuals and minorities for concessions against the majority, and talk of things like natural rights and moral duties becomes possible.

On the other hand, if we believe in no such thing – that is, if we believe that physics is all there is – then all we can do is describe the features of various kinds of morality sociologically – as things that different groups of people happen to have done, in different periods of history.
But then the problem is that we have no basis to say whether or not they should continue to do those things.
There’s nothing inherent in a description of a historical phenomenon that magically converts it into an ethical imperative.

In the absence of any ultimate Guarantor, then, morality itself becomes permanently provisional and dependent on the coercive force available to arbitrary authorities or majorities.
First I have already argued, it is impossible for the Presence of a God to exists as real.
So any Moral elements from such an illusory God is down the drain in terms of reality which I do not deny they do have optimality utility relative to our past and present state. But the future is changing so fact, that such crude divine morality [such as Christianity's will be obsolete soon, given that of Islam has long been useless and evil].

He stated "if we believe that physics is all there is" .. Physics only??? what a sham of a thinking.

Currently we have an exponential expansion of knowledge re our own internal self, i.e. that of neurosciences, the genome, the brain, plus other fields of knowledge etc. not accessible to Hume during his time.

Note I stated, there is the fact of the 'oughtness' of all humans must breathe else they die.
This 'oughtness' is a fact of human existence. It is only the mentally ill who do not comply with this natural 'oughtness'. You deny this?
The above scientific fact from the scientific FSK can be extrapolated as a moral fact within a credible moral FSK of near equivalent credibility.
Can you refute why this is not possible to be factual morally?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:52 am First I have already argued, it is impossible for the Presence of a God to exists as real.
No, you've asserted it, many times, and asserted and asserted and asserted...but you have not "argued" it, because you have no credible rationale for it, and that's what an "argument" involves.

Something doesn't become true merely because you prefer to believe it. It also doesn't become true because you insist on it and repeat it. And showing that it's true takes evidence...reasons...logic...proof...things compelling to other people. Your wishes and preferences are not that.

But I also cannot help but see your mind is closed, and your grasp of Hume is sadly limited. So discussing it seems pointless: you don't even have a handle on the basic subject matter of the is-ought problem, it would seem.

So I'm content to let stand what has already been said. To say more, one would have to be dealing with somebody better informed.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:04 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 7:56 pm Do you agree that what you claimed, as follows, is a non sequitur?

This action is contrary to the nature/expressed will/teleological purposes of [God]; therefore this action is (objectively) morally wrong.
No, that's completely correct.
Nope. A non-moral premise cannot entail a moral conclusion. So this argument is a non sequitur.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:51 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:22 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:05 pm
I only meant "consensus of people who know," that is, of philosophers," -- a claim that is easy to justify. Their particular expertise makes them qualified to speak to somebody who is unsure of what the Is-Ought problem is, which is what I was doing at the time. As for you, Peter, I'm sure you already know it.

And yes, that's what Hume's claim boils down to. But let's give P. a generous reading here: in its most generous form, we would have to say that Hume is pointing out that IF an empirical claim can be used to justify a moral one, it would FIRST have to be shown by the moralizer in question that it can -- it's not at all obvious to Hume, or from any secular perspective, that it ever can.

But so far, no secularist moralizer has been able to give reasons why we can even think moralizing is rationally possilble. And three of the major attempts to defeat Hume's claim, along with the reasons for their failure, are explained in the article I suggested.
Understood. But I disagree with the conclusion that, if morality is not objective - if there are no moral facts - then 'moralising' is rationally impossible. That simply doesn't follow. Happy to explain, if you don't understand why.
I should have put it this way: "rational moralizing is impossible." That means that irrational pseudo-moralizing, such as creating an ethic particular to a society or to a group or to only one person, is possible; but it is impossible to defend rationally why anybody at all should be obligated to that ethic -- including the person who invented it.
Not so. It's easy to defend rationally a moral code based on, say, promoting the well-being (suitably defined) of (as a minimum) all people equally - and to defend rationally why everyone should comply. Being rational just means having good (as in sound) reasons for what we do and believe. You merely assert this supposed impossibility, without explaining it.
And, meanwhile, if (as you agree) an is can't entail an ought, then no actual or putative facts about a creator god, or its nature, or what it thinks is morally right and wrong, can entail a moral conclusion.
That's ALMOST right. But if it's not carefully explained, it's wrong.

The mere fact that, say, a nameless, faceless, identityless Supreme Being -- a mere "Cosmic Force" or "Deistic Absentee" -- exists would never warrant the conclusion that such a Being has a moral preference as necessary. For argument's sake, It might not have any specific purposes, intentions or trajector in mind for us at all. That's possible...but even then, not certain. But what would be true is that even IF such an entity had a moral preference, we would not know what it was.

However, if the God identified with the One spoken of in the Bible is the Supreme Being, then objective morality does exist.
Sorry, but this is false. To repeat: An is can't entail an ought; therefore, no actual or putative facts about a creator god, or its nature, or what it wants, or what it thinks is morally right and wrong, can entail a moral conclusion.

I understand why you don't want to apply what you know about the is/ought barrier to your theistic moral objectivism - and why you have to pretend your argument isn't a question-begging fallacy. But that's your problem.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:29 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:04 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 7:56 pm Do you agree that what you claimed, as follows, is a non sequitur?

This action is contrary to the nature/expressed will/teleological purposes of [God]; therefore this action is (objectively) morally wrong.
No, that's completely correct.
Nope. A non-moral premise cannot entail a moral conclusion.
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:

For example, if a particular action (say, murder) is actually a wrong action (as defined by God's purposes in Creation) then that action is objectively wrong...and it's wrong whether one thinks it is, or not.

But if the world is a product of accident and materials, as I think you suppose, then there are no moral premises at all; and hence, there are no actually-moral conclusions either. So that, I have to grant to you and Hume. But no more.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:50 pm It's easy to defend rationally a moral code based on, say, promoting the well-being (suitably defined)
Great. Show that.

"Suitably define" an action, and show why all people are obligated to adhere to or not perform it.

One case will do.
Being rational just means having good (as in sound) reasons for what we do and believe.

That won't do.

If one wishes to design a master-race, a rational procedure is the prevention of reproduction by all others, or even their deliberate extermination. If one's goals are to establish one's DNA pool, then a rational procedure is to impregnate the maximum number of females without compunction, while opposing their attempts at continency, contraception or infanticide.

The problem is that you've skipped over the necessity of morally judging the status of the aspired-to action. People aspire to a lot of very wicked things, for which they can find rational means that are often also wicked.
An is can't entail an ought
Only true in a world without God. If the "is" is already involved in a moral situation, then the appropriate "ought" can follow.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:52 am First I have already argued, it is impossible for the Presence of a God to exists as real.
No, you've asserted it, many times, and asserted and asserted and asserted...but you have not "argued" it, because you have no credible rationale for it, and that's what an "argument" involves.

Something doesn't become true merely because you prefer to believe it. It also doesn't become true because you insist on it and repeat it. And showing that it's true takes evidence...reasons...logic...proof...things compelling to other people. Your wishes and preferences are not that.
Note I have presented my arguments here;
It is impossible for God to exists as real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

You have not provided any sound refutation in that thread.
What you are doing here is merely making noises to desperately sustain consonance [based on a blind faith in an illusory God] against the threat of cognitive dissonance arising from my argument against God's existence.
But I also cannot help but see your mind is closed, and your grasp of Hume is sadly limited. So discussing it seems pointless: you don't even have a handle on the basic subject matter of the is-ought problem, it would seem.

So I'm content to let stand what has already been said. To say more, one would have to be dealing with somebody better informed.
My Grasp of Hume limited??

I was triggered to study Hume full time for one year when [not too long ago] Sculptor nastily said the same to me, i.e. I was still suckling when he finished reading Hume. Now my Folder for Hume indicated there are 118 files of books and articles therein. What about you, do you have a folder for Hume in your computer, if so, how many files therein.

Don't be merely an empty vessel, give me evidence or test me where I have insufficient knowledge of Hume and if true I will dig in to cover the gap.

btw, if you are so enamored with Hume's NOFI, you should apply it to your claim 'God ought to exists' which is mostly inferred in the Cosmological Argument, i.e. from the "is_es" of God supposed manifestations.
Do not forget, Hume is a dogmatic empiricist, i.e. doggedly insisting on direct verifiable evidences and you can never provide direct empirical evidence of God.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:08 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:29 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:04 pm
No, that's completely correct.
Nope. A non-moral premise cannot entail a moral conclusion.
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. Your conclusion is that there are moral facts. And your premise is that a god baked moral facts into the universe. So: there are moral facts because there are moral facts. Or: if there are moral facts, then there are moral facts.

And, to clarify. A moral assertion, and therefore a moral premise, is one that claims X is morally right or wrong, good or bad. So 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.

For example, if a particular action (say, murder) is actually a wrong action (as defined by God's purposes in Creation) then that action is objectively wrong...and it's wrong whether one thinks it is, or not.
'A god's purpose in creation is that murder is morally wrong; therefore, murder is morally wrong.'
Factual (non-moral) premise / moral conclusion. Non sequitur. Do you see now?


But if the world is a product of accident and materials, as I think you suppose, then there are no moral premises at all; and hence, there are no actually-moral conclusions either. So that, I have to grant to you and Hume. But no more.
Not so. You describe the actual nature of the world, and so our moral predicament: moral premises (claims) are our own creations. They are, as it were, conclusions or decisions. And they can be more or less rational.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 6:02 am Begging the question means using the conclusion to support a premise.
Don't you realize you are begging more of the question than anyone else.

To you;
A fact is a fact only and only if it is a fact [of whatever form].

You definition of fact restricted your specific FSK do not extend to empirical verification and justification via philosophical reasoning of the fact.
Your conclusion is that there are moral facts. And your premise is that a god baked moral facts into the universe. So: there are moral facts because there are moral facts. Or: if there are moral facts, then there are moral facts.
Note this thread I raised

There are Divine "Moral Facts"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34655
8. The critical point is Christian moral fact is an accurate intuitive reflection of the actual inherent "ought-not-ness to kill another human". The only limitation is, it is not verified nor justified, thus it is not credible.

9. This is similar to Henry's correct intuitive insight re the moral fact of slavery where Henry agrees chattel slavery is morally wrong and is a moral fact but he does not provide "solid" justification on why it is so.
In this case, it is not that IC is intuitive, but he is merely a blind follower.
The moral fact intuited was done by the founders who compiled the Gospels and turned them into a religion.

As I had claimed, the inherent moral fact 'ought-not-ness to kill another human" within all humans was intuited by the founders of the religion and that is incorporated as a doctrine from an illusory God.

Regardless of the fakeness of God, the intuited moral fact "ought-not-ness to kill another human" was intuited correctly and what is critical is when incorporated as a command with threat of Hellfire, it does work optimally to contribute the well being of humanity relative the past and present [not necessary the future].

Your views are ruthless, heartless and cruel, you don't give a damn to the well-being of humanity relative to the psychological state of the majority within specific time period.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 7:48 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 6:02 am Begging the question means using the conclusion to support a premise.
Don't you realize you are begging more of the question than anyone else.

To you;
A fact is a fact only and only if it is a fact [of whatever form].

You definition of fact restricted your specific FSK do not extend to empirical verification and justification via philosophical reasoning of the fact.
Your conclusion is that there are moral facts. And your premise is that a god baked moral facts into the universe. So: there are moral facts because there are moral facts. Or: if there are moral facts, then there are moral facts.
Note this thread I raised

There are Divine "Moral Facts"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34655
8. The critical point is Christian moral fact is an accurate intuitive reflection of the actual inherent "ought-not-ness to kill another human". The only limitation is, it is not verified nor justified, thus it is not credible.

9. This is similar to Henry's correct intuitive insight re the moral fact of slavery where Henry agrees chattel slavery is morally wrong and is a moral fact but he does not provide "solid" justification on why it is so.
In this case, it is not that IC is intuitive, but he is merely a blind follower.
The moral fact intuited was done by the founders who compiled the Gospels and turned them into a religion.

As I had claimed, the inherent moral fact 'ought-not-ness to kill another human" within all humans was intuited by the founders of the religion and that is incorporated as a doctrine from an illusory God.

Regardless of the fakeness of God, the intuited moral fact "ought-not-ness to kill another human" was intuited correctly and what is critical is when incorporated as a command with threat of Hellfire, it does work optimally to contribute the well being of humanity relative the past and present [not necessary the future].

Your views are ruthless, heartless and cruel, you don't give a damn to the well-being of humanity relative to the psychological state of the majority within specific time period.
Once more time. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion - or a description of such a feature of reality that is true, in context, given the way we use the words or other signs involved. And the conditions 'independent from opinion' and 'true within a descriptive context' are critical. (We can and do describe things in many different ways.)

Given this, there are and can be no moral facts. And your appeal to intuition - the last refuge of the irrationalist - demonstrates that you have no valid and sound argument for the existence of so-called moral facts.

A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, because the is/ought barrier is insuperable. And every one of your actual or putative premises are factual - such as that people 'intuited' that it's wrong to kill other humans. Even if they did and do, it doesn't follow that it's morally wrong to kill other humans - just as, if people 'intuited' that it's right to kill other humans, it wouldn't follow that it's morally right to kill other humans. There's no logical connection to either moral conclusion.

I and others have explained this to you innumerable times, and you seem incapable of following this reasoning. But perhaps someone else following this discussion can produce an explanation that will help the penny to drop for you. Also, pigs may fly.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 9:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 7:48 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 6:02 am Begging the question means using the conclusion to support a premise.
Don't you realize you are begging more of the question than anyone else.

To you;
A fact is a fact only and only if it is a fact [of whatever form].

You definition of fact restricted your specific FSK do not extend to empirical verification and justification via philosophical reasoning of the fact.
Your conclusion is that there are moral facts. And your premise is that a god baked moral facts into the universe. So: there are moral facts because there are moral facts. Or: if there are moral facts, then there are moral facts.
Note this thread I raised

There are Divine "Moral Facts"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34655
8. The critical point is Christian moral fact is an accurate intuitive reflection of the actual inherent "ought-not-ness to kill another human". The only limitation is, it is not verified nor justified, thus it is not credible.

9. This is similar to Henry's correct intuitive insight re the moral fact of slavery where Henry agrees chattel slavery is morally wrong and is a moral fact but he does not provide "solid" justification on why it is so.
In this case, it is not that IC is intuitive, but he is merely a blind follower.
The moral fact intuited was done by the founders who compiled the Gospels and turned them into a religion.

As I had claimed, the inherent moral fact 'ought-not-ness to kill another human" within all humans was intuited by the founders of the religion and that is incorporated as a doctrine from an illusory God.

Regardless of the fakeness of God, the intuited moral fact "ought-not-ness to kill another human" was intuited correctly and what is critical is when incorporated as a command with threat of Hellfire, it does work optimally to contribute the well being of humanity relative the past and present [not necessary the future].

Your views are ruthless, heartless and cruel, you don't give a damn to the well-being of humanity relative to the psychological state of the majority within specific time period.
Once more time.
What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion - or a description of such a feature of reality that is true, in context, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.
And the conditions 'independent from opinion' and 'true within a descriptive context' are critical. (We can and do describe things in many different ways.)
The above is merely empty talk about nothing.

given the way we use the words or other signs involved
Who are "we" here.
The "we" is merely a group of people agreeing among themselves with reference to at best ordinary language or at the worst the ideology of the 'logical positivist'.

Note the majority, i.e. 90% who are theists would not agree with you outright and you have no grounds to dispute with them at all.

What you are relying to counter my claims are merely words and noises without any thing of substance in relation to reality.

Rather, if you claim facts are scientific facts conditioned upon the scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], that would be more realistic, i.e. the most credible of all knowledge at present. But note, scientific facts are best are merely polished conjectures.

There are other facts but they must be conditioned by their specific FSKs, e.g. legal, economics, finance, political, etc.

You have no choice but to accept the above, and in that case you have to accept there are moral facts which are conditioned upon its respective moral FSK.
In my case, I claimed the moral facts I proposed has near equivalent credibility to that of scientific facts, thus has reasonable credibility of reality.

Given this, there are and can be no moral facts. And your appeal to intuition - the last refuge of the irrationalist - demonstrates that you have no valid and sound argument for the existence of so-called moral facts.
I am not appealing to intuition like those of the Christian's 'Love all, even enemies' thus 'Thou Shall not kill' nor the intuitive moral facts re Chattel Slavery like that of Henry's which happened to be correct with the inherent factual moral facts of humanity.
A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, because the is/ought barrier is insuperable. And every one of your actual or putative premises are factual - such as that people 'intuited' that it's wrong to kill other humans. Even if they did and do, it doesn't follow that it's morally wrong to kill other humans - just as, if people 'intuited' that it's right to kill other humans, it wouldn't follow that it's morally right to kill other humans. There's no logical connection to either moral conclusion.
Nope, all humans has the potential to kill [humans and other living things] but that was and is still critical for survival of the species but with limitations.

Whilst in one way, killing facilitate the survival of the species at its primal state, this potential to kill is a double-sided blade which can also exterminate the species, especially with the advent of very lethal Weapons of Mass Destruction. Surely you cannot dispute this?

As such there is an inherent inhibitor, i.e. the moral potential to modulate and mitigate this will-be-obsolete killing potential which is not necessary in some future time.

As such the "ought-not-ness to kill humans" is the fact or a moral potential, i.e. a moral fact which has been unfolding and we need to expedite this moral potential [a moral fact] to ensure the human species is not exterminated by someone or a group pressing that RED BUTTON!
I and others have explained this to you innumerable times, and you seem incapable of following this reasoning. But perhaps someone else following this discussion can produce an explanation that will help the penny to drop for you. Also, pigs may fly.
Nah you are the one who is dogmatically stuck with archaic thinking.

We need to expound the inherent moral fact or the inherent moral potential, i.e. to inculcate the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' in all individuals so that we have fool proof state where no one will ever press that RED Button and no nations will stock WMDs in the future. [note in the future, not now].
We need to understand these moral facts so that we can expeditious self-develop in all individual in the future this necessary moral reality of the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans'.

Btw, even with the lowest credibility of moral facts, the divine moral facts of Christianity is sufficient to prevent their genuine followers from pressing the Red Button. But this is not extensive and will be obsolete in the future, we need to get every human on board and thus has to promote the realistic moral facts within all humans via a credible moral FSK.

With your claims of no moral facts, humanity will remain in status quo in this regards and thus increase the possibility the human species could be exterminated by some rogue dictators or evil groups with the latest lethal WMDs in the future.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

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.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 6:02 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:08 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:29 pm
Nope. A non-moral premise cannot entail a moral conclusion.
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.
Post Reply