Derail from Hillarygate

[Charles]

I have no idea what you mean that there is logic in your reasoning. That is an assertion, not a fact. All you have offered was opinion, not deductive reasoning. Good grief man you could not even offer a good argument for why Deontology was more correct than Utilitarianism or even Moral Skepticism - apart from your person preference. And the fact that any moral preference that you come up with, will in the end, be circular also. So I will ask you again Charles - name one universal moral truth. In all this discussion you have not named one. You tried with lying and killing, but we know how that turned out. And I never claimed that I could "prove" God, only that a God akin to the God of classic theism would offer a foundation for universal moral truths. And that without such a God, as Kant made clear, morality would be irrational.

Let me remind you of an answer to one of my first post "Though I thank you for the well thought out response." http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450197

It seems you have changed your mind since you have been asked to give us a little more than an "of course" or personal attacks to "support" your views.

[Starlight]

You seem to not even remember what it was about.

That is normal for seer. His MO is just to question people about morality for dozens of pages, ignoring their answers and then asking the same questions over again until they give up responding in disgust.

[Charles]

That is normal for seer. His MO is just to question people about morality for dozens of pages, ignoring their answers and then asking the same questions over again until they give up responding in disgust.

[seer]

Good, this is the crux of your argument Charles. Let's say that men always killed each other and we destroyed ourselves. Why is that, our destruction, a universal moral wrong or an objective moral wrong? That is why I brought up the whole alien thing, which you did not answer. I agree that we may have an emotional, subjective aversion to being killed or living in that kind of world but that does not get us to a universal or objective moral truth. Nor can it.

[Starlight]

One would wonder why anyone who had anything of substance would rather make false statements about what others say than explaining his/her own position.

His own position is not really very defensible so he likes to avoid even trying to defend it. What he wants to try to convince people of is that humans can't provide an objective morality. He hopes that if he convinces people of this, they'll fall back on "well I guess we need God then, because we need morality", in a kind of God-of-the-gaps kind of way. He hopes they won't examine whether adding God actually solves the problem, and will simply assume that it does without looking at it too closely, the way he prefers to avoid doing himself.

Obviously most modern philosophers agree that adding God to the picture brings nothing at all to the table as far as the philosophical foundations of morality go, and agree with Socrates' Euthyphro dilemma. But seer prefers to avoid thinking about that sort of stuff, and likes to concentrate simply on trying to undermine other people's moral foundations and studiously ignore the fact he's up to his neck in quicksand himself as far as moral foundations go.

[seer]

No Charles, it is more than that, Kant' argument would go something like this, let me quote:

(1) Moral behavior is rational.
(2) Moral behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.


That is why I said the wicked often prosper and die a good old age: Let me quote again:

So I will ask again Charles, can morality be rational without justice? How?

[seer]

His own position is not really very defensible so he likes to avoid even trying to defend it. What he wants to try to convince people of is that humans can't provide an objective morality. He hopes that if he convinces people of this, they'll fall back on "well I guess we need God then, because we need morality", in a kind of God-of-the-gaps kind of way. He hopes they won't examine whether adding God actually solves the problem, and will simply assume that it does without looking at it too closely, the way he prefers to avoid doing himself.

Obviously most modern philosophers agree that adding God to the picture brings nothing at all to the table as far as the philosophical foundations of morality go, and agree with Socrates' Euthyphro dilemma. But seer prefers to avoid thinking about that sort of stuff, and likes to concentrate simply on trying to undermine other people's moral foundations and studiously ignore the fact he's up to his neck in quicksand himself as far as moral foundations go.

Euthyphro dilemma does not apply to the God of scripture since his laws would not be arbitrary. And you can not provide an objective source of morality. And you do need God Star.

[Sparko]

Me thinks you must misremember!

your crystal ball is cloudy.

[Charles]

No Charles, it is more than that, Kant' argument would go something like this, let me quote:

(1) Moral behavior is rational.
(2) Moral behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.


That is why I said the wicked often prosper and die a good old age: Let me quote again:



So I will ask again Charles, can morality be rational without justice? How?

Seer, you have been lying so many times the last couple of days. Now you claim to "quote again". But the truth is, you never quoted those lines before. Period. Stop lying, seer.

You should consider how this makes you look. You keep asking for answers I have already given. And keep making up stuff about what has been going on.

I have already touched upon the questions. Read "Keeping things straight" here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450176

[seer]

Seer, you have been lying so many times the last couple of days. Now you claim to "quote again". But the truth is, you never quoted those lines before. Period. Stop lying, seer.

Charles stop accusing me of lying. The "quote again" only means I was referencing the same source. When I first reference him I said, "let me quote." Of course you must immediately jump to lying. I simply forgot to link the quote:http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...oral-argument/

I have already touched upon the questions. Read "Keeping things straight" here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450176

No you did not give a direct answer, you basically said that we could live moral lives without God. You also gave your opinion on why you disagreed with Kant, but none of that directly bears on the question: can a moral system that is not just be rational. Yes or no?

And let me repeat:

Good, this is the crux of your argument Charles. Let's say that men always killed each other and we destroyed ourselves. Why is that, our destruction, a universal moral wrong or an objective moral wrong? That is why I brought up the whole alien thing, which you did not answer. I agree that we may have an emotional, subjective aversion to being killed or living in that kind of world but that does not get us to a universal or objective moral truth. Nor can it.

[Charles]

Charles stop accusing me of lying. The "quote again" only means I was referencing the same source. When I first reference him I said, "let me quote." Of course you must immediately jump to lying. I simply forgot to link the quote:http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...oral-argument/



No you did not give a direct answer, you basically said that we could live moral lives without God. You also gave your opinion on why you disagreed with Kant, but none of that directly bears on the question: can a moral system that is not just be rational. Yes or no?

And let me repeat:

To reference the same source is not to quote again. It is to quote something new. You were lying, and you have been doing so several times lately. Anyone can just check the stuff you have written and my replies. Very easy. There is no escape, seer.

Readers: go read and you will see that what seer says above about what I said is wrong. Read "Keeping things straight": http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450176

I think there is enough evidence that you constantly ask the same questions claiming you have not been giving an aswer and make false statements about what I have said. Honestly, seer, do you need me to prove more falsehoods on your side?

[seer]

To reference the same source is not to quote again. It is to quote something new. You were lying, and you have been doing so several times lately. Anyone can just check the stuff you have written and my replies. Very easy. There is no escape, seer.

Listen, I was in a rush to get to church, I merely forgot the link. If the link was there it would have been perfectly clear.

Readers: go read and you will see that what seer says above about what I said is wrong. Read "Keeping things straight":

That does not answer the basic question as to whether a moral system without justice is rational.

WHERE IN ANY OF THIS CHARLES IS THE QUESTION ADDRESSED?

AND WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THIS

Good, this is the crux of your argument Charles. Let's say that men always killed each other and we destroyed ourselves. Why is that, our destruction, a universal moral wrong or an objective moral wrong? That is why I brought up the whole alien thing, which you did not answer. I agree that we may have an emotional, subjective aversion to being killed or living in that kind of world but that does not get us to a universal or objective moral truth. Nor can it.

[Charles]

Listen, I was in a rush to get to church, I merely forgot the link. If the link was there it would have been perfectly clear.



That does not answer the basic question as to whether a moral system without justice is rational.



WHERE IN ANY OF THIS CHARLES IS THE QUESTION ADDRESSED?

AND WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THIS

Good, this is the crux of your argument Charles. Let's say that men always killed each other and we destroyed ourselves. Why is that, our destruction, a universal moral wrong or an objective moral wrong? That is why I brought up the whole alien thing, which you did not answer. I agree that we may have an emotional, subjective aversion to being killed or living in that kind of world but that does not get us to a universal or objective moral truth. Nor can it.

The question is adressed by pointing to the fact that if anyone fails to comply it is their fault and not the fault of the moral theory. It is adressed by pointing to the fact that the theory and its correctness is not influenced people's behaviour. The question in the form of "whether a moral system without justice is rational." is misunderstood. If no one follows Kant's system, it does not become unjust or not rational. Rather it proves people wrong. I do not share your view that it is without effect on how people will act, though it is certain that some will be unafected. Having a rational theory of what is just makes it easier for society to justify the punishment of murderers liars and so on. But this is, basically, a different aspect than the founding of ethics.

Regarding the everyone killing themselves, I think it is quite obvious that such actions cannot be universal for as long as at least one person holds the he does not want to die. And I do. And I guess quite many other's do. If you had a more open and honest way of discussing, we could even discuss what constitutes man as a goal in himself, but, honestly, I have had enough of your lies and misrepresentations.

If I were to make statements in bold about every question you have left unanswered you would be in deep trouble.

[JimL]

Liberals arbitrarily decided children's consent "doesn't count". there's nothing stopping any of you loons from rescinding that arbitrary decision the next time you get a whim to start another process of degeneration. this has been your modus operandi for the last couple of decades.

Age of consent laws are century's old and there is nothing stopping any law from be changed by any society. Don't be a dufus.

[seer]

The question is adressed by pointing to the fact that if anyone fails to comply it is their fault and not the fault of the moral theory. It is adressed by pointing to the fact that the theory and its correctness is not influenced people's behaviour. The question in the form of "whether a moral system without justice is rational." is misunderstood. If no one follows Kant's system, it does not become unjust or not rational. Rather it proves people wrong. I do not share your view that it is without effect on how people will act, though it is certain that some will be unafected. Having a rational theory of what is just makes it easier for society to justify the punishment of murderers liars and so on. But this is, basically, a different aspect than the founding of ethics.

First, that reasoning is clear as mud Charles when it comes to the specific question. And the fact that Kant is clear - a moral system without justice is irrational, go back to my link, his reasoning is solid - and it is not my position but Kant's. So your position would be that a moral system that is often or largely unjust is rational.

Regarding the everyone killing themselves, I think it is quite obvious that such actions cannot be universal for as long as at least one person holds the he does not want to die. And I do. And I guess quite many other's do. If you had a more open and honest way of discussing, we could even discuss what constitutes man as a goal in himself, but, honestly, I have had enough of your lies and misrepresentations.

No Charles, whether an individual subjectively wants to die or not is immaterial to the point. The question was if we actually destroyed ourselves would that be a universal or objective moral wrong. It isn't, so... And yes, I would like to hear what goal the random, amoral forces of nature had for man.