How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #1

Post by Compassionist »

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #121

Post by The Tanager »

boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:07 amWe are discussing morality as a fixed, objective, absolute concept, no? You have moved the goal posts. You now seem to say that there are morals for some, not for others. That it's contextual. It's fine for God to Murder, but not people?
Me clarifying that I don’t share your added unstated assumptions to the discussion is not moving the goalposts. All along we’ve been discussing whether human morality can be objectively grounded within either theism or atheism. Humans are the moral agents we have been discussing. This isn’t a new direction. This doesn’t mean that God would go against the morality instilled within human design.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:07 amMoral Philosophers talk about Personhood, that is, Morality applies to those who can understand Morality. The Moral Agent.
Raccoon's don't have the ability to recognize the full breadth and depth of human interaction, therefore, they are not Moral Agents. However, as opposed to WLC's claim, animals (especially social mammals) exhibit the beginnnnings of moral behavior. Raccoon's can understand that getting in a fight (harming) can lead to retaliation and harm to itself. Isn't this why we don't act immorally? To avoid harm to ourselves? Harm to our family? Harm to our community? Harm to others, the world, or even animals?
Why do we have a moral duty to care for the environment? Because it would harm us, and harm, generally, is "bad". you might claim it's due to our purpose, but again, you haven't established this "purpose" exists.
You continue to avoid giving the atheistic grounding to harming others being bad.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:07 am1. I'm not sure how you've grounded human morality in our design and purpose, since you haven't established we have design or purpose, or that there is a God.
You don’t understand what this discussion logically requires. It asks IF theism is true and IF atheism is true, then what would follow about morality being objective or subjective. To answer that question one does NOT need to show atheism or theism is true or that the features it posits are true. The question assumes it both for theism and atheism and then just analyzes what logically follows.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:07 amI have, on the other hand, established that people can harm and get harmed - and that humans are Moral Agents. You are forced to admit I have given you proof that the things that make up morality (under atheism) actually exist.
You have not given any argument that shows harming others is OBJECTIVELY bad. Sure, it may be bad for you or bad for them, but it won’t necessarily be bad from other perspectives.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:07 am2. If Morals are grounded in God, and God is a Person, then it is - by definition - Subjective. If you are going to claim that Morals transcend God, make that case. And, perhaps, give your answer to the Euthyphro's Dilemma.
That is not the definition of subjective when talking about HUMAN morality, which is what we are doing. God, as the creator of everything, would not have an objective moral standard, so in that sense it is subjective, but that doesn’t mean morality is subjective TO US. Nor does it mean God doesn’t act in line with the morality implanted in humans.

As Euthyphro is concerned, human morality is what it is because of who God is. God’s nature as a being that wants to create free will beings who flourish and designing humans towards that purpose is the ground of objective human morality.

The horns that the Euthyphro dilemma tries to present is that human morality would either be arbitrary (saying rape was good, etc.) or that God is appealing to some standard of goodness outside of God’s self. First, my view does not lead to morality being arbitrary because it’s based on God’s purpose for humans to flourish and that rape goes against that design of flourishing. The design that comes from God’s nature. Second, my view doesn’t have God appealing to a standard higher than God’s self.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:07 am3. Can you name one Moral Value that you can show is Universal, Objective and confirmed to be so? Then, can you confirm that God agrees?
There is no need for this discussion, if one understands what was being analyzed, as I pointed out again above.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:07 am
(1) What feature within atheism would objectively ground morals? If you are still going to say “harm,” then support why harm is objectively bad instead of just restating that it is.
But, that's it. What else are you looking for? This isn't rocket surgery. The basic premise would be Chaos is opposed to Order. Chaos "harms" Order. If the Universe has any "purpose" it is to exist against the forces of Chaos. Therefore, built into the Universe is a preference for Order, not Chaos (harm).
How, on atheism, is there a purpose of the universe? Why is that the purpose? The universe just exists with a mix of chaos and order. Why is one the purpose and not the other?
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:07 amThis is why I prefer my view on Moral Values, as they are real, and meaningful to us.
And Nazi morality is just as real and meaningful to some. And the hate for witches and members of the LGBTQIA+ community are just as real and meaningful to some. And our desire to not have those kinds of hate is real and meaningful to you and me, but not others.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:07 am
(2) What is your support for your second premise: “There is no God and Objective morals exist”?
There is no evidence. "Unicorn racing pixies have stolen my time machine, and that's why I couldn't get to Middle Earth?"
Do unicorns, pixies, time machines, or Middle Earth exist?
Just because you can say the word, doesn't mean they exist.
Honestly, at some point Theists have to realize the futility of their 10,000's years of trying to argue for God's existence. You'd think it would be the most obvious thing in the world by now.
So, you are saying a lack of evidence supports the truth of atheism (no God), but a lack of evidence also supports the truth of objective morals (versus no morals). That’s inconsistent. Why wouldn’t this mean there are no objective morals unless evidence is shown otherwise?

It’s also an irrational attempt to shift the burden. Atheism is not the default position; agnosticism is. Therefore, you need actual evidence not an irrational argument from silence for the atheism part. You also need actual evidence for the objective morals part. Do you have anything?
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:07 amI've told you repeatedly. A lack of consensus from people who study this for a living, at a depth that you and I would get lost in the first 5 minutes, means the answer isn't something you can blithely decide for yourself because of how you feel.
I have not been arguing based on how one feels. And I’m philosophically trained, having engaged with these writings in depth.

Regardless of that, you are still assuming a consensus must be sought in this kind of discussion. That is what you need to support as being important, not the matters that there is a lack of consensus on.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:07 amLet's try to get this through to you.

Scholars debate whether 1 Corinthians was written as early as 50CE or as late as 60CE.

Can I say it's 60CE as fact, or should I recognize the debate among scholars who study this for a living and reserve judgment?
Yes, you should reserve judgment one way or the other, as I’ve said (with different examples you’ve given) throughout this thread. My point beyond that is that this doesn’t mean a consensus is always required for all discussions for people who aren’t experts in the subject.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #122

Post by boatsnguitars »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:09 am ....
1. I'll repeat, morality under atheism is accounted for by harm and moral agents. That and the fact that we, moral agents, can recognize harm is all we need to create moral theory. You keep saving I haven't accounted for it, but I have. That's how Moral Theorists account for it. You just reject the answer because of your religious beliefs. You can keep claiming I haven't accounted for them, but I have. This is why I know you aren't trained in philosophy, because you simply can't grasp one of the most fundamental aspects of moral theory. Moral Theorists have robust discussions about Morality without ever mentioning God. They don't need to. God is not required for morality. Read that last sentence until it sinks in.

IFF atheism is true (which it is), then we experience something we call moral values.
We have to deal with that. Not invent Sky Daddies.

2. You have not made any verifiable claim about morality under theism. You make wild claims that God is somehow free of morality because of his nature, yet the source of morality, and blah, blah... You don't even know if any of that is true, and even if true - since you seem to want to be able to assert these things "in theory" and not have to prove your God exists - doesn't explain why God's morality would have any impact on us, other than God simply punishing us for doing what he was "born" to dislike. This is no basis of morality. It certainly doesn't account for it.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #123

Post by The Tanager »

boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:50 am1. I'll repeat, morality under atheism is accounted for by harm and moral agents. That and the fact that we, moral agents, can recognize harm is all we need to create moral theory. You keep saving I haven't accounted for it, but I have. That's how Moral Theorists account for it.
You haven’t shown that these morals would be objective. You’ve offered that whether something harms or doesn’t harm objectively decides what is good or bad. That’s just semantics. On what objective basis are all or certain kinds of harm good or bad? And what is the standard/goal that one can take away from (harm) or not take away from (not harm)?
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:50 amYou just reject the answer because of your religious beliefs.
No, I’ve clearly offered actual reasons which you aren’t fully responding to.
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:50 am2. You have not made any verifiable claim about morality under theism. You make wild claims that God is somehow free of morality because of his nature, yet the source of morality, and blah, blah... You don't even know if any of that is true, and even if true - since you seem to want to be able to assert these things "in theory" and not have to prove your God exists - doesn't explain why God's morality would have any impact on us, other than God simply punishing us for doing what he was "born" to dislike. This is no basis of morality. It certainly doesn't account for it.
My claims are certainly verifiable through logical analysis. If you don’t think that a creator’s design and purpose provides objectivity then offer an actual rebuttal of the points. Our intentional design, if we have one, will objectively give us what it means for us to flourish.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #124

Post by boatsnguitars »

You really don't get it. The reason for why morals can be Objective can't be embodied in a person who has the power to decide whether they are objective or not.
If a god exists, and objective morals exist, then they exist because of Brute Fact.
That God had no choice which moral values it determined were objective. It just happened to have those morals programmed into it by Brute Fact. It also couldn't change it choose them as that would, by definition, make them Subjective.
However, if one were to prove objective morals do exist, and there is no god, then the only way they could exist is by the same mechanism: Brute Fact.
This is a well worn debate in philosophy and extremely boring.
There are far more fascinating discussions and none of the require a god. Why do you insist on shoving your god into everything?
Again, I don't believe there are objective morals, but if there are, you can't leap to a god.

You are trying to argue for Divine Command Theory, which is only discussed among theist, without much support. You are arguing for Subjective morals, but because your god determines them, you call them Objective... Just because. Semantics indeed

Please tell me you understand.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #125

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:42 pm
Compassionist wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:30 amYes, I could put the heating on instead of putting the coat on but that would cost extra money which I don't have.
You could also just be cold. I’ve done it before; it hasn’t cost me any extra money to do so.

So, to sum up where we stand on this part of our discussion: You still haven’t proven determinism. You also still haven’t justified your exclusion of limited free will from one of three logically possible options (determinism, limited free will, and complete free will) available to us.
Compassionist wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:30 amGod should have made all beings all-knowing and all-powerful because no one and nothing can harm them.
You keep saying this and I keep responding, to which you just keep repeating this. I’m trying to move the discussion forward. Why should God avoid all possible harm, even if we aren’t all-knowing and all-powerful?
Compassionist wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:30 amThere is no such thing as objective morality. All knowledge and morality are subjective. I have said that many times. We go round and round the same circles so I am just going to stop.
I’m trying to move the discussion forward, but instead of responding to my reasoning, you just keep repeating this. You have offered no valid feature within an atheistic reality that would objectively ground morals to where something could rightly be called an injustice (unless you are prepared to say that someone eating a vegan flavor of ice cream you dislike is just as much an injustice). I have offered God’s purpose and design as that objective grounding within a theistic reality and you haven’t offered a response against that.
Cold makes my chronic pain worse. That's why I avoid being cold as far as possible.

I can't even prove to anyone that I exist, how could I possibly prove anything else to anyone? From your point of view, I could be a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream or a philosophical zombie or a real sentient human. How would you know which of these possibilities is actually true?

I can't even prove to myself that I have a body and that live on a planet in a universe. My perceptions of being in a body and living on a planet in a universe could be simulations or hallucinations or illusions or dreams or actual reality. I have no way to know. I am agnostic not just about the existence of Gods but also about the nature of reality.

Living things suffer and die. All the suffering, injustices, and deaths are sources of distress for me. That's why I think that if all living things were all-knowing and all-powerful we could protect ourselves from all suffering, injustices, and deaths. I don't even know if God or Gods exist, let alone know whether or not God or Gods are all-knowing and all-powerful.

How can God give us objective morality? Please explain. How would God even know anything objectively? How can anyone know anything objectively?

You have not yet shown me that my choices are free from my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. You have not yet shown me that my choices are free from the laws of physics. You have not yet shown me that you are real and not a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream or a philosophical zombie.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #126

Post by boatsnguitars »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:13 pm I’m trying to move the discussion forward, but instead of responding to my reasoning, you just keep repeating this. You have offered no valid feature within an atheistic reality that would objectively ground morals to where something could rightly be called an injustice (unless you are prepared to say that someone eating a vegan flavor of ice cream you dislike is just as much an injustice). I have offered God’s purpose and design as that objective grounding within a theistic reality and you haven’t offered a response against that.
You're not trying to move the discussion forward, you are trying to repeat your premise until we agree, because you have chosen to believe you are right. I have repeatedly responded to your idea of Divine Command Theory.

Again:

1. First, we don't know if there are things called 'objective morals' any more than there is something called Karma. It - literally (and you have to accept this fact) - could be something you've invented. There are things in this world that we have invented, we humans. Especially concepts like morals. After all, without humans (moral agents) there is no such thing as morals. If there were no moral agents in the universe, morals wouldn't exist. Right? Karma wouldn't exist, right? If there were no living Beings, music wouldn't exist, art, dance, poetry, theater, etc. These only exist because of humans.

2. You seem to be stuck on the idea that with God, Morals can be Objective. But how did God get the morals values he has? How did it 'just happen' that God embodies all the moral values he claims to embody? Think about this for more than a minute. If God gave himself those moral values, they are - by definition - subjective. If God was "born" with those moral values then how do we know they are justifiable to be enforced? For example, perhaps God believes poking out the eye of every other child is moral - because that's what he was "born" to believe. Just because God believe it, doesn't mean that is true Justice. It's arbitrary.
You claim God doesn't like homosexuality. I disagree. Whether God was born like that, or chose to be like that doesn't matter - just because you say it matters, or just because he says it matters. If there is a reason, fine, give us the rational reason. If there is no rational reason, then you make it worse for yourself because you are now claiming God's moral values are irrational.

3. Worse, even if you are right that God embodies all the best moral values, AND has the ability to enforce them, it still doesn't make any sense. You can claim all you want that murder, rape, slavery, homosexuality, etc. are morally wrong - objectively morally wrong - but you still offer no reason why we shouldn't do any of it. You say, "Because God says it's wrong and he'll punish you" - but not if I accept Jesus and get my sins forgiven. So, even under your wacky world view of objective moral values, there is no rational reason we should obey since we have a perfect lawyer (Jesus) to get us off the hook.
After all, you seem to be presenting a superior moral theory, correct? You are trying to say it's not only objective and real, but you are claiming it comes from the Perfect Judge (God), and by extension must be far superior to an atheist moral system.
But, why ought you obey God? Because you want to get to Heaven. How do you get to Heaven? Sinning doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is whether you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Sure, you can't be unrepentant, but that's easy enough to fix. Do all your sinning in your 20's and 30's like Paul, then find Jesus when you get older and realize people can beat you up.

You simply have not offered a better, or even good moral system. You have not grounded it in anything but a fairy tale, and even if true, it's still a horrible system for why we shouldn't hurt each other.

Please read this over and over until you understand.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #127

Post by The Tanager »

boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:33 pmYou really don't get it. The reason for why morals can be Objective can't be embodied in a person who has the power to decide whether they are objective or not.
I understand your words, yes. Understanding and agreeing are two different things. And I think your words are mistaken. In the case I laid out, God isn’t deciding whether morality is objective or not. God, by the very act of creating humans with a nature and a purpose necessarily is building objectivity into morality. If atheistic evolution (or something else) could do the same, they would be building objectivity into morality by that very act. It’s not doing one act (creating) and then a second act (deciding objectivity or subjectivity). They go hand in hand logically.
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:33 pmIf a god exists, and objective morals exist, then they exist because of Brute Fact.
Yes, if you understand that what is a brute fact was created so by God. On atheism, there is no explanation for brute facts of human reality.
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:33 pmThat God had no choice which moral values it determined were objective.
No, God’s design and purpose for humans determines what is objectively good and bad for humans. And God determined both of those. On atheism, while humans are “designed” (i.e., we have a nature), there is no given purpose in reality.
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:33 pm It just happened to have those morals programmed into it by Brute Fact.
There would be nothing to program anything into God, although I agree what God is would be “brute fact”. That doesn’t make human morality subjective.
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:33 pmIt also couldn't change it choose them as that would, by definition, make them Subjective.
What definition of ‘subjective’ are you using?
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:33 pmThis is a well worn debate in philosophy and extremely boring.
There are far more fascinating discussions and none of the require a god. Why do you insist on shoving your god into everything?
If you find this discussion boring, then don’t discuss it. I’m following logic here; if you disagree then show problems with the logic.
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:33 pmYou are trying to argue for Divine Command Theory, which is only discussed among theist, without much support.
It’s not just discussed among theists. A look at any scholarly publication or textbook on the subject shows differently. If you want to discuss the support, then discuss it instead of just claiming there isn’t much.
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:33 pmYou are arguing for Subjective morals, but because your god determines them, you call them Objective... Just because. Semantics indeed.
I’ve given reasoning that goes beyond “they’re objective because it is God that is determining them,” so deal with my actual points if you want to move the discussion forward.
boatsnguitars wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:16 am1. First, we don't know if there are things called 'objective morals' any more than there is something called Karma. It - literally (and you have to accept this fact) - could be something you've invented.
For the purpose of this discussion it does not matter if there are objective morals or not. So this is entirely irrelevant here.
boatsnguitars wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:16 amThere are things in this world that we have invented, we humans. Especially concepts like morals. After all, without humans (moral agents) there is no such thing as morals. If there were no moral agents in the universe, morals wouldn't exist. Right? Karma wouldn't exist, right? If there were no living Beings, music wouldn't exist, art, dance, poetry, theater, etc. These only exist because of humans.
This is irrelevant to the arguments I’ve been making in this thread as both (the theistic and the atheistic accounts) assume morals are objective. But I’ll provide my thoughts on your claims. Yes, humans have invented some things in this world; other things we haven’t. So this point doesn’t get us far.

For your next claim you’d have to prove humans are the only moral agents in the world. And then you have the further claim that if humans didn’t exist, there couldn’t be moral agents, morals, art, dance, poetry, theater, etc. Go for it, but don’t confuse this with the questions I’ve been addressing.
boatsnguitars wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:16 am2. You seem to be stuck on the idea that with God, Morals can be Objective. But how did God get the morals values he has? How did it 'just happen' that God embodies all the moral values he claims to embody? Think about this for more than a minute. If God gave himself those moral values, they are - by definition - subjective. If God was "born" with those moral values then how do we know they are justifiable to be enforced? For example, perhaps God believes poking out the eye of every other child is moral - because that's what he was "born" to believe. Just because God believe it, doesn't mean that is true Justice. It's arbitrary.
You claim God doesn't like homosexuality. I disagree. Whether God was born like that, or chose to be like that doesn't matter - just because you say it matters, or just because he says it matters. If there is a reason, fine, give us the rational reason. If there is no rational reason, then you make it worse for yourself because you are now claiming God's moral values are irrational.
Yes, (as I’ve already been saying) God’s values are just eternally the way they are. But we are talking about human morality. Are certain actions moral/immoral for us and, if so, what makes that so? The objectivity of human morals is grounded in our nature as humans (what we are made up of, what benefits and harms us, etc.) plus having a specific purpose in reality (to build each other up, take care of each other, whatever).

Atheism results in humans have a certain nature, but there is no specific purpose given therein. Some theisms could result in the same, but some theisms could also provide a specific purpose. On Christianity (and other worldviews) sharks have a different God-given purpose than humans and humans are given the nature of being a moral agent as well. Thus, what is immoral for a human (rape) is not immoral for a shark (it’s just forced copulation).

It’s not really about God’s values, but about God’s design of human nature and given purpose (which will be informed by God’s values, of course). Atheism doesn’t offer both of those features; it just offers one.
boatsnguitars wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:16 am3. Worse, even if you are right that God embodies all the best moral values, AND has the ability to enforce them, it still doesn't make any sense. You can claim all you want that murder, rape, slavery, homosexuality, etc. are morally wrong - objectively morally wrong - but you still offer no reason why we shouldn't do any of it. You say, "Because God says it's wrong and he'll punish you" - but not if I accept Jesus and get my sins forgiven. So, even under your wacky world view of objective moral values, there is no rational reason we should obey since we have a perfect lawyer (Jesus) to get us off the hook.
I have said no such thing. Nor would I. One should act morally because that will lead to their flourishing (which includes the flourishing of those around us). One should become a disciple of Jesus in order to be led into living that kind of flourishing life.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #128

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:05 pmCold makes my chronic pain worse. That's why I avoid being cold as far as possible.
That doesn’t mean determinism or limited free will; it’s just a description of what “choice” is made.
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:05 pmI can't even prove to anyone that I exist, how could I possibly prove anything else to anyone? From your point of view, I could be a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream or a philosophical zombie or a real sentient human. How would you know which of these possibilities is actually true?

I can't even prove to myself that I have a body and that live on a planet in a universe. My perceptions of being in a body and living on a planet in a universe could be simulations or hallucinations or illusions or dreams or actual reality. I have no way to know. I am agnostic not just about the existence of Gods but also about the nature of reality.

Living things suffer and die. All the suffering, injustices, and deaths are sources of distress for me. That's why I think that if all living things were all-knowing and all-powerful we could protect ourselves from all suffering, injustices, and deaths. I don't even know if God or Gods exist, let alone know whether or not God or Gods are all-knowing and all-powerful.
I’ve already responded to this. Respond to my responses instead of just repeating this part. You still haven’t proven determinism, justified excluding limited free will from a logical option, what grounds an “injustice”.
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:05 pmHow can God give us objective morality? Please explain. How would God even know anything objectively? How can anyone know anything objectively?
I have explained. I’ll repeat. Respond to my actual points instead of returning to your above refrain. God, as the creator of everything, would obviously know those things objectively. I know the objective meanings of every poem I write by the very nature of being the creator of them. God would know every objective fact of creation by the very nature of being the creator of them.

God would give us objective morality by designing our nature (that we are physical, what harms our body, what types of activities would be joyful to our minds, etc.) and by giving us a purpose within the world (as moral agents, having spheres of influence, etc.).
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:05 pmYou have not yet shown me that my choices are free from my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. You have not yet shown me that my choices are free from the laws of physics. You have not yet shown me that you are real and not a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream or a philosophical zombie.
I don’t have to. You have brought in these things to support claims that you have made about right and wrong. You have the burden to support these things; I don’t have the burden to prove you wrong.

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #129

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:49 am
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:05 pmCold makes my chronic pain worse. That's why I avoid being cold as far as possible.
That doesn’t mean determinism or limited free will; it’s just a description of what “choice” is made.
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:05 pmI can't even prove to anyone that I exist, how could I possibly prove anything else to anyone? From your point of view, I could be a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream or a philosophical zombie or a real sentient human. How would you know which of these possibilities is actually true?

I can't even prove to myself that I have a body and that live on a planet in a universe. My perceptions of being in a body and living on a planet in a universe could be simulations or hallucinations or illusions or dreams or actual reality. I have no way to know. I am agnostic not just about the existence of Gods but also about the nature of reality.

Living things suffer and die. All the suffering, injustices, and deaths are sources of distress for me. That's why I think that if all living things were all-knowing and all-powerful we could protect ourselves from all suffering, injustices, and deaths. I don't even know if God or Gods exist, let alone know whether or not God or Gods are all-knowing and all-powerful.
I’ve already responded to this. Respond to my responses instead of just repeating this part. You still haven’t proven determinism, justified excluding limited free will from a logical option, what grounds an “injustice”.
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:05 pmHow can God give us objective morality? Please explain. How would God even know anything objectively? How can anyone know anything objectively?
I have explained. I’ll repeat. Respond to my actual points instead of returning to your above refrain. God, as the creator of everything, would obviously know those things objectively. I know the objective meanings of every poem I write by the very nature of being the creator of them. God would know every objective fact of creation by the very nature of being the creator of them.

God would give us objective morality by designing our nature (that we are physical, what harms our body, what types of activities would be joyful to our minds, etc.) and by giving us a purpose within the world (as moral agents, having spheres of influence, etc.).
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:05 pmYou have not yet shown me that my choices are free from my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. You have not yet shown me that my choices are free from the laws of physics. You have not yet shown me that you are real and not a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream or a philosophical zombie.
I don’t have to. You have brought in these things to support claims that you have made about right and wrong. You have the burden to support these things; I don’t have the burden to prove you wrong.
You clearly don't understand what I have said in my posts. It's not your fault. If I had your genes, your environments, your nutrients, and your experiences, I would be you and would think as you do and feel as you do and believe as you do and speak as you do and act as you do.

The Biblical God is evil and imaginary. I left Christianity because I read all the horrific and unjust and inaccurate and contradictory verses in the Bible.

If I could prevent all suffering, injustices, and deaths I would. If I could make all living things forever happy I would. I have done, am doing, and will do all that is determined by the laws of physics and my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The same applies to you and all organisms. The inevitable has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

Post #130

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 5:44 pmYou clearly don't understand what I have said in my posts. It's not your fault. If I had your genes, your environments, your nutrients, and your experiences, I would be you and would think as you do and feel as you do and believe as you do and speak as you do and act as you do.

The Biblical God is evil and imaginary. I left Christianity because I read all the horrific and unjust and inaccurate and contradictory verses in the Bible.

If I could prevent all suffering, injustices, and deaths I would. If I could make all living things forever happy I would. I have done, am doing, and will do all that is determined by the laws of physics and my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The same applies to you and all organisms. The inevitable has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen.
Our discussion here has nothing specifically to do with whether the biblical God or Christianity is accurate. I disagree with your beliefs about them, but that is irrelevant to this discussion and should be dropped for clarity’s sake. If I clearly don’t understand what you’ve said, then you have the chance to clarify. Below I am listing what I have understood you to have said and my critiques. Even if you don’t respond to my critiques, clarify what you have said so that I can correct my misunderstandings.

1. If you aren’t saying your examples prove determinism (what I understand you to have said), then what are you saying with those examples?

If you are saying you have proved determinism, then respond to my critique as to why you are just describing the choice made or just assuming determinism without any support.

2. If you haven’t claimed that “limited free will” is not a logical option (what I understood you to have said), then what are you saying about “limited free will”?

If you are saying it isn’t a logical option, then respond to my critique as to why it’s still a logical possibility and that you need to refute it.

3. If you haven’t claimed that “harm” is how we objectively determine what is objectively unjust (as I understood you to have said, then what are you saying about injustice?

If you are saying harm is the objective measure, then respond to my critique that you seem to be using this as a synonym for “injustice” and that you need to show why harming others is objectively bad for an individual.

4. If you aren’t saying that God couldn’t know anything objectively (as I’ve understood you to have said), then what are you saying?

If you are saying this, then I responded to that and now it’s your turn to respond to my direct response. The creator of something objectively knows that something, just by the very nature of creating it. Just like I know the objective meanings of every poem I’ve written. Do you agree? If not, why not? If you have no reason to disagree, then you should believe that God could know God’s creation objectively.

5. If you aren’t saying that God couldn’t give us objective morality (as I’ve understood you to have said), then what are you saying?

If you are saying this, then respond to my actual reasoning to the contrary. Objectivity would result by providing both (1) a design to human nature and (2) a purpose to humans in the world. God, unlike atheistic accounts of morality, could provide both of these. To rationally disagree, either show how God couldn’t provide (at least) one of these or how these two elements fail to provide objectivity.

If you simply respond with the same refrain as above (mere assertions of your opinion without any support), then you aren’t being rational. And you’ve said you are acting “emotionally” not rationally, but your posts in this thread have absolutely been rational attempts at explaining your “emotional” actions. You are clearly trying to come to rational beliefs on these issues and think your beliefs are rational. But, if you do not have answers to my above critiques, then you are holding on to your views by blind faith.

Post Reply