Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

Do unto others, as you would have done to you. Evil is whatever is harmful to human beings. Why? Because whatever is harmful to human beings is not good for human beings. You already know that, because you live it every day. You believe murder is evil, correct? But you have no problem with the murdering of animals for food, right. How come? Because they're not human beings.

And that is the circular moral reasoning I was speaking to Charles about. Thank you, perhaps Charles will get it now.

[JimL]

And that is the circular moral reasoning I was speaking to Charles about. Thank you, perhaps Charles will get it now.

Call it what you will, thats all there is to it. Your argument makes no sense at all, good and evil are arbitrary, its whatever god says whenever he says it. Murder can be either good or evil, coveting and pillaing anothers property can be either good or evil, etc. etc. etc.

[Tassman]

Not really because the soul would not be material. It would have no material presence.

If the soul has no material presence how does it interact with our material body? Where's the point of connection.

[Tassman]

And that is the circular moral reasoning I was speaking to Charles about. Thank you, perhaps Charles will get it now.

No it's not circular reasoning, it's based upon what we know about the natural evolution of social species like us. The "do unto others, as you would have done to you" rule merely embodies the principle of reciprocity which is common to many of the primates.

[Charles]

Charles, you don't get to avoid the question by asking me one. You know you can not present a definition of good that is non-circular, so you will do anything to push the question off. And in our debate I did show time and time again when you relied on unprovable assumptions. But you can clear it all up here - just present a definition of good and why it is good. Try being honest.

The circle of seer... No answer just some wrong claims that others cannot answer on their part. So we will not get a long and detailed description of your view?

[seer]

The circle of seer... No answer just some wrong claims that others cannot answer on their part. So we will not get a long and detailed description of your view?

Charles if you are going to be dishonest leave my thread.

[seer]

Call it what you will, thats all there is to it. Your argument makes no sense at all, good and evil are arbitrary, its whatever god says whenever he says it. Murder can be either good or evil, coveting and pillaing anothers property can be either good or evil, etc. etc. etc.

Nonsense Jim, we have been over this. God's commands can not be arbitrary since His moral character is unchanging. And you just admitted that evil does not actually exist in your world view so murder can actually be good or bad depending on personal or collective preference.

[seer]

No it's not circular reasoning, it's based upon what we know about the natural evolution of social species like us. The "do unto others, as you would have done to you" rule merely embodies the principle of reciprocity which is common to many of the primates.

It is circular Tass when you bring moral judgements to the question. Then there is the other golden rule: he with the most gold rules. When you say one is more correct, morally, than the other then you will end up in a circle to justify your position. Why should we follow the golden rule? If we can get away with taking advantage of our fellow man - why not?

[Charles]

Charles if you are going to be dishonest leave my thread.

This is the next step in your no-answer strategy? Why not just give a detailed account of your view? Embarrased by its circularity and lack of proof?

[Charles]

It is circular Tass when you bring moral judgements to the question. Then there is the other golden rule: he with the most gold rules. When you say one is more correct, morally, than the other then you will end up in a circle to justify your position. Why should we follow the golden rule? If we can get away with taking advantage of our fellow man - why not?

Said the nihilist...

[seer]

This is the next step in your no-answer strategy? Why not just give a detailed account of your view? Embarrased by its circularity and lack of proof?

Charles, I have. Moral truths only exist in the mind or minds (if you disagree show otherwise). Therefore God is the only possible source for universal moral truths, since He is universal, infinite. And unlike the fictional "objective moral truths" that some point to, God would have the power and authority to enforce His commands. And yes, God alone defines "good" - grounded in His immutable nature. It is a deontological divine command theory, which I have already explained to you. Now if you find that circular - fine - offer a definition of "good" that is not circular. Something you have failed to do time and time again. And lack of proof? You have zero proof for an objective moral standard, yet you still believe in it.

[seer]

Said the nihilist...

Right, nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism...

[Charles]

Right, nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism...

Nihilism is impossible in all practical matters and does not follow from atheism. That is only the case if you wrongly presuppose that god is the only possible source. And he cannot possibly be unless you allow anything to be morally good with no qualification.

[seer]

And he cannot possibly be unless you allow anything to be morally good with no qualification.

That does not follow, since God's commands can not be arbitrary. Which we discussed at length. So back to you - can you offer a non-circular definition of "good?" If you can't just say so and stop accusing me since you can not offer anything better.

Nihilism is impossible in all practical matters and does not follow from atheism

Of course it does, Webster:Nihilism a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths.

[shunyadragon]

That does not follow, since God's commands can not be arbitrary. Which we discussed at length. So back to you - can you offer a non-circular definition of "good?" If you can't just say so and stop accusing me since you can not offer anything better.



Of course it does, Webster:Nihilism a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths.

I reject moral 'truths' therefore I am I Nihilist? Too simplistic definition.

Morals and ethics exist in all societies, they are neither objective nor subjective nor 'truths,' but they have objective attributes and subjective attributes. Morals and ethics are social conventions and standards of societies and cultures that maintain stability, cooperation and relationships so that the culture and society may succeed. They may be understood as religious or philosophical moral principles.

Better definition:

Source: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS740US740&q=Dictionary#dobs=nihilism

ni·hil·ism
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C...#dobs=nihilism
noun
the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

PHILOSOPHY
extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.

© Copyright Original Source