Moral objective values...

whisperit · Post by **whisperit** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:02 pm

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:54 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
Isn't that like being angry at someone for eating the kinds of food that you don't like? Suppose that the people being sacrificed don't like it but also believe that it has to be done.
Kinda, it's not necessarily anger though. I would say it is like being repulsed at someone for eating the kinds of food that you don't like, repulsed enough to stop them from eating that food.

This seems to me to be the reductio ad absurdum of subjectivism, why would you stop someone from eating a food that they like and choose to eat knowing what it is on the mere basis that you find it repulsive? That would never occur to me.

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:47 pm

I would say that finding eating - say - grasshoppers repulsive is not a moral choice, and I am prepared to accept that such a thing is entirely subjective.

But does that mean that finding genocide repulsive is also a subjective choice?

The reason you might find eating grasshoppers repulsive is purely a personal, subjective thing, but the reason you find genocide repulsive is that it results in millions of unnecessary and unjustifiable deaths.

I don't think the reason you think grasshoppers are yucky is the same reason you think megadeaths are yucky. I think instead of looking at how they are the same we need to look at why they are different.

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:44 pm

Genocide is wrong because it minimizes survival and maximizes suffering and extinction IN and FOR A POPULATION of a given species. It is against the law because of the former. However, it may not be wrong if this race is attempting to wipe out the POPULATION of another species, or all species. (e.g. If all Jews unite and form an 'army' to destroy all non-Jews, then why would it be wrong for non-Jews to commit genocide against the Jews?)

Eating grasshoppers does not minimizes survival and maximizes suffering and extinction IN and FOR A POPULATION, it may for an individual. The problem will be if this individual is trying to eat ALL the grasshoppers to make them extinct. Also, there is no law against eating grasshoppers, yet. Perhaps there should be for eating ALL grasshoppers or if an individual wants to eat all grasshoppers. Or what about if grasshoppers are attempting to wipe the human race? Science are fighting harmful bacteria every day. What is wrong with that?

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:01 pm

JohnA wrote: It is also wrong it is against the law because of the former.
....
The problem will be if this individual is trying to eat all the grasshoppers to make them extinct. Also, there is no law against eating grasshoppers.

John? Are trying to be funny?

If so, good show! Well done!

I'm going to have to add that to the collection on 'Daily Laugh.'

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:36 pm

It's a whole extra incentive to take care with posting.

I wrote:I don't think the reason you think grasshoppers are yucky is the same reason you think megadeaths are yucky.

Is that true? If so, what is the difference? I am sure there is one, but I am not sure what it is.

PS - I quite like grasshoppers. The hard part is pulling their legs off so they don't jump out of the pan as they are being cooked.

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:41 pm

keithprosser3 wrote: It's a whole extra incentive to take care with posting.

I wrote:I don't think the reason you think grasshoppers are yucky is the same reason you think megadeaths are yucky.
Is that true? If so, what is the difference? I am sure there is one, but I am not sure what it is.

PS - I quite like grasshoppers. The hard part is pulling their legs off so they don't jump out of the pan as they are being cooked.

Why does this not answer your question:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 409#608409

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:48 pm

I found it hard to untangle your post to be quite honest. There are two questions in my post; you can help me by saying simple 'yes' or 'no' to the first and explaining it again or referring me to the previous post.

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:59 pm

keithprosser3 wrote: I found it hard to untangle your post to be quite honest. There are two questions in my post; you can help me by saying simple 'yes' or 'no' to the first and explaining it again or referring me to the previous post.

Is that true?

Yes, for me.
There is a difference between 'thinking' grasshoppers are yucky and megadeaths are yucky.

If so, what is the difference? I am sure there is one, but I am not sure what it is.

Because if you taste a grashopper it does not taste well. So, it is not 'thinking' but because of observing (tasting/eating it).
We 'think' megadeaths are yucky because of evolution. However, there may be cases where megadeaths may not be yucky in practice even if we 'think' it is (as a 1st pass).
See my previous link.

I posted this before, but for me deciding what is wrong has to do with ethics and empathy. And the sources for this ethic and empathy is (in this order):
1. Evolution
2. Society
3. Thinking

You do not really need the last two, but they prolong mortality. And the evidence for this is that humans are here today and we got here before we formed 'societies' and 'thoughts'.

Post by **otseng** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:07 pm

JohnA wrote: You lack of logical epistemology is showing, your reason filter need an upgrade.
Read carefully:
Now, when will you start using an honest debate style and answer my questions?
Shall I post them again?

Moderator Warning

Please do not make personal comments about others.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Post by **otseng** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:09 pm

Danmark wrote: John? Are trying to be funny?

If so, good show! Well done!

I'm going to have to add that to the collection on 'Daily Laugh.'

Moderator Comment

This is not adding anything constructive to the debate, but simply mocking another poster.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.