Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[bluegreenearth]

Excellent use of a Stargate Atlantis clip! My wife and I really enjoyed that series.

[TRANSPONDER]

Excellent use of a Stargate Atlantis clip! My wife and I really enjoyed that series.

Thank you. Nice i can do something to please . I rather enjoyed it and the other Sci -fi despite some eye -rolling.
but I'm...weird. The bits i most enjoyed were the domestic bits. Not bang bang kiss kiss that TV shows think it's all about. Look...when I look at life on a submarine or aircraft carrier, i am less diverted by the aircraft and missiles and torpedoes, but the catering. The kitchen, the mess. Feeding in a submarine, or warship. Or indeed a liner in mid - Atlantic, or in an aircraft.

The fact that powerful alien races are trying to find and raid Atlantis is forgotten for the moment. The ethical dilemma is just an intro and the writers don't care about the answer. I'm thinking about the chefs who were wormholed over to Pegasus to flip burgers..or bake Pizza..they have Pizza ovens? Some Brit troops sent as I guess we gotta let the Limeys have a look in or they complain we don't value 'em.
'We don't'
"Sure but don't tell 'em that."

"They say they want to bring a curry cook with them." (1)

But weird, like i say. I do military history. Egypt, Rome, Crusades, thirty years' war, 18th c wars and modern. Done 'em. Don't need Vietnam -trauma firefights against enemy Things that can be mown down without any emotion.

"Dear snicker - snack cereal company.
I appreciate the offer of 100 revolutionary war soldiers.
However, since i am against war, I am not sure i want them.
Instead, could Ii have a set of peace - time civilians?

Yrs Sncerely, Charlies M Brown."

(1) "Y'don't need one, pal. We got replicators...no, no, not that kind, the ones that make food."

"Ok...Phal, Bangalore, hot, spicy."

"Sorry. We do not have that item in our databank. Please choose another item for replication."

"Hammer, sledge, heavy, steel tipped."

[The Tanager]

The reasons you shared didn't successfully demonstrate how your argument resolves the subjectivity problem. Do you have an explanation for the argument's failure produce an objective purpose or objective morality that is less arbitrary than a subjective purpose or a subjective morality?

You think I haven’t successfully demonstrated it. I’ve offered reasons to the specific points you’ve made that I think do demonstrate it. Your responses seem to me to just say my argument doesn’t work and then repeat your view. That doesn’t give me anything to respond to in order to move the discussion forward.

For instance, in post 155, you said “Given the criteria for objectivity proposed by your argument, an objective purpose and an objective morality are no less arbitrary than a subjective purpose and a subjective morality.” That doesn’t offer why you think that is so. I don’t see why one would think it’s just as arbitrary. If you want to move the discussion forward, you have to get more specific on your critique.

[Tcg]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #154]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #155]

And I’ve shared the reasons behind my disagreements with your conclusions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and challenging mine.

The reasons you shared didn't successfully demonstrate how your argument resolves the subjectivity problem. Do you have an explanation for the argument's failure produce an objective purpose or objective morality that is less arbitrary than a subjective purpose or a subjective morality?

That's the second miserable attempt to escape the take down I've answered today, together with some miserable denial. Namely to pretend you have already answered (imply dismissed) the argument. You haven't even addressed it even if you understood it. Your demand for an objective morality is futile, pointless and misconceived, and the only question (usual one) is whether you don't understand it or you do or are pretending u you don't to keep the debate going.

There seems no credible reason to think that morality can be objective, either as monolithic truths, like laws of physics, a solid human conclusion or a divine diktat from a god.

The better case and one you haven's addressed, never mind dismissed, even if you comprehended it, is that morality is always debatable, changing, relative and evolving, and the go - to reason why is because humans devised it, as they devised the ethical game - play to solve the problem of evolving society. But it is no less valid because devised by humans as is music, language or sporting rules.

I am sure we did this before. but we do it now, and you should make an effort to understand, as I know you are very smart, and only God and Biblefaith is stopping you accepting a biologically evolved instinctive solving of a social problem (at least as a valid hypothesis) , and neither a god - given diktat for a cosmic law of moral physics, which are far less probable.

Unpleasant though it may seem, Morals apologetics failed as bad as Anselm's Ontological argument, Lane Craig's kalamitous apologetic, and Pascal's wager, whether you try to make it a philosophical abstraction or an apologetic for god.

So you are a Mod here, in a position that should be respected. It deserves better than denial and grubby tricks. I am not trying to rob you but to help you. I can see you are trapped in the Faith -bubble where an objective truth (goddunnit - morals, Life and everything) is assumed as necessary as well as true.

But you have to give up the ring. I know you love it, but it is destroying your credibility, as it destroys all those who try to defend Christianity, God and the Bible with any of those wretched and debunked tatty old apologetics.

Moderator Warning



This post is littered with personal uncivil comments. You need to cease these. If you have a valid point to make you should be able to comment absent these attacks. If you aren't willing or able to do so, you may need to find another venue to make them.

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.

[bluegreenearth]

You think I haven’t successfully demonstrated it. I’ve offered reasons to the specific points you’ve made that I think do demonstrate it. Your responses seem to me to just say my argument doesn’t work and then repeat your view. That doesn’t give me anything to respond to in order to move the discussion forward.

For instance, in post 155, you said “Given the criteria for objectivity proposed by your argument, an objective purpose and an objective morality are no less arbitrary than a subjective purpose and a subjective morality.” That doesn’t offer why you think that is so. I don’t see why one would think it’s just as arbitrary. If you want to move the discussion forward, you have to get more specific on your critique.

The objective purpose and objective morality as defined by your argument is arbitrary because no logical justification is provided for choosing them over any subjective purpose or any subjective morality.

[The Tanager]

The objective purpose and objective morality as defined by your argument is arbitrary because no logical justification is provided for choosing them over any subjective purpose or any subjective morality.

What do you mean by ‘choosing them over subjective purpose and subjective morality’? (1) Why we should believe in objective purpose/morality over subjective purpose/morality? (2) Why objective nature+purpose would give us objective morality rather than subjective morality? (3) Why objective purpose/morality is a better thing to have than subjective purpose/morality? (4) Something else?

[TRANSPONDER]

The objective purpose and objective morality as defined by your argument is arbitrary because no logical justification is provided for choosing them over any subjective purpose or any subjective morality.

What do you mean by ‘choosing them over subjective purpose and subjective morality’? (1) Why we should believe in objective purpose/morality over subjective purpose/morality? (2) Why objective nature+purpose would give us objective morality rather than subjective morality? (3) Why objective purpose/morality is a better thing to have than subjective purpose/morality? (4) Something else?

Obviously because an objective matter (like a law of physics) gives an objective result. This is science and Morality, which, if it was Really objective, would be as valid as science. Philosophy is valid in debating morals and ethics, but it should always bear in mind that it is a human construct, based on the instinctive desire for well being, but no more than that. Consider sports and games. Isn't the instinct to Win innate? We take it for granted, but it was evolved for a reason.

But the rules are devised by humans and can be changed. Moral codes are like that.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #154]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #155]

And I’ve shared the reasons behind my disagreements with your conclusions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and challenging mine.

The reasons you shared didn't successfully demonstrate how your argument resolves the subjectivity problem. Do you have an explanation for the argument's failure produce an objective purpose or objective morality that is less arbitrary than a subjective purpose or a subjective morality?

That's the second miserable attempt to escape the take down I've answered today, together with some miserable denial. Namely to pretend you have already answered (imply dismissed) the argument. You haven't even addressed it even if you understood it. Your demand for an objective morality is futile, pointless and misconceived, and the only question (usual one) is whether you don't understand it or you do or are pretending u you don't to keep the debate going.

There seems no credible reason to think that morality can be objective, either as monolithic truths, like laws of physics, a solid human conclusion or a divine diktat from a god.

The better case and one you haven's addressed, never mind dismissed, even if you comprehended it, is that morality is always debatable, changing, relative and evolving, and the go - to reason why is because humans devised it, as they devised the ethical game - play to solve the problem of evolving society. But it is no less valid because devised by humans as is music, language or sporting rules.

I am sure we did this before. but we do it now, and you should make an effort to understand, as I know you are very smart, and only God and Biblefaith is stopping you accepting a biologically evolved instinctive solving of a social problem (at least as a valid hypothesis) , and neither a god - given diktat for a cosmic law of moral physics, which are far less probable.

Unpleasant though it may seem, Morals apologetics failed as bad as Anselm's Ontological argument, Lane Craig's kalamitous apologetic, and Pascal's wager, whether you try to make it a philosophical abstraction or an apologetic for god.

So you are a Mod here, in a position that should be respected. It deserves better than denial and grubby tricks. I am not trying to rob you but to help you. I can see you are trapped in the Faith -bubble where an objective truth (goddunnit - morals, Life and everything) is assumed as necessary as well as true.

But you have to give up the ring. I know you love it, but it is destroying your credibility, as it destroys all those who try to defend Christianity, God and the Bible with any of those wretched and debunked tatty old apologetics.

Moderator Warning



This post is littered with personal uncivil comments. You need to cease these. If you have a valid point to make you should be able to comment absent these attacks. If you aren't willing or able to do so, you may need to find another venue to make them.

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.

You have something to learn. This is not abuse, personal attacks or anything of that kind, but a wake up call and advice that wretchedly bad arguments only destroy the poster's credibility.

Now, I don't know whether you are theist or not, but I do not respect weaponised moderator bullying, nor respond well to threats to silence me by demanding I post in DM where nobody can see it.

It wouldn't be the first time I've been thrown off a forum, in one case by the Christian owner who didn't like it that i was winning too many arguments. The Christian posters demanded i be brought back. In another case, because i didn't tick enough Woke boxes, and I'm back there now. What do you think of that ?

If you don't know the difference between personal attacks and criticism of apologetics, i suggest you learn, I do not respond well to threats, nor off - topic; this is all relevant to the topic - apologetics methods.

As I've told moderators before who threatened me, I can find other forums. This one would be no loss. How many guests do we get? A handful. How much do people look in and learn? I'm only here to get the message out.

Now you can do what you like and make your petty threats or you can stay out of my face. Or you can kick me off the board and as i say, you can deal with that bit of weaponized petty authority after I'm gone.

Up to you. I love all you people, even my opponents, and my banging the shoe on the desk is to correct terribly bad apologetics, not to insult or hurt anyone.

Over to you friend, because none of this was personal, nor actually infraction of rules, unless you want to think it is.

[bluegreenearth]

The objective purpose and objective morality as defined by your argument is arbitrary because no logical justification is provided for choosing them over any subjective purpose or any subjective morality.

What do you mean by ‘choosing them over subjective purpose and subjective morality’? (1) Why we should believe in objective purpose/morality over subjective purpose/morality? (2) Why objective nature+purpose would give us objective morality rather than subjective morality? (3) Why objective purpose/morality is a better thing to have than subjective purpose/morality? (4) Something else?

For example, under Christian theism and in accordance with your argument, a person has the choice to take actions that are divinely commanded or take actions that are influenced by a subjective standard like the individual's own moral intuitions. For the sake of keeping things simple, let's ignore situations where the chosen action would be the same under both the objective and subjective standards. Instead, consider a circumstance where there is a contradiction between the action required by the objective morality and the action motivated by a subjective morality. Accordingly, a person has the free choice to do what is objectively "right" or objectively "wrong" where the contradictory action that is motivated by a subjective morality is the objectively wrong action according to your argument. Given those conditions, there is no logical justification for individuals to act in accordance with the theistic objective morality rather than in accordance with their own subjective moral intuitions because the difference between the objective and subjective is the arbitrary difference between the god's personal perspective (e.g., divine commands) and the individual's personal perspective (e.g., moral intuitions).

[The Tanager]

For example, under Christian theism and in accordance with your argument, a person has the choice to take actions that are divinely commanded or take actions that are influenced by a subjective standard like the individual's own moral intuitions. For the sake of keeping things simple, let's ignore situations where the chosen action would be the same under both the objective and subjective standards. Instead, consider a circumstance where there is a contradiction between the action required by the objective morality and the action motivated by a subjective morality. Accordingly, a person has the free choice to do what is objectively "right" or objectively "wrong" where the contradictory action that is motivated by a subjective morality is the objectively wrong action according to your argument. Given those conditions, there is no logical justification for individuals to act in accordance with the theistic objective morality rather than in accordance with their own subjective moral intuitions because the difference between the objective and subjective is the arbitrary difference between the god's personal perspective (e.g., divine commands) and the individual's personal perspective (e.g., moral intuitions).

But the objectively right choice will lead to the human doing what it was made to do, to it flourishing, being objectively happier (at least in the long run, if not immediately) just like a car will objectively run better on the correct fuel over putting honey in the gas tank. That doesn't seem like an arbitrary difference to me.

[bluegreenearth]

But the objectively right choice will lead to the human doing what it was made to do, to it flourishing, being objectively happier (at least in the long run, if not immediately) just like a car will objectively run better on the correct fuel over putting honey in the gas tank. That doesn't seem like an arbitrary difference to me.

The objective morality in your argument is arbitrary because it is derived from the subjective personal opinion of a creator who arbitrarily decided that one set of arbitrary actions would be moral and result in outcomes arbitrarily valued as good or right and another set of arbitrary actions would be immoral and result in other outcomes arbitrarily valued as evil or wrong from an infinite set of arbitrary actions and arbitrary outcomes. For example, a creator could have just as easily decided that humanity will be created to be unhappy and destroy itself such that it would be objectively moral for them to commit random acts of violence against each other and objectively immoral for them to cooperatively coexist in happiness with each other. Under that system of objective morality and in accordance with your argument, humans doing what they were made to do would not lead to flourishing or to being happier. A creator could have also created humanity to experience long-term unhappiness when they act in accordance with an objective morality and experience long-term happiness when they take objectively immoral actions (though, I would otherwise argue that the creator's control over what determines a person's experience of happiness is a negation of the individual's freewill to decide what makes them happy). In yet another example, a creator could have created a universe where the objective moral consequence of selfish human behavior is their flourishing and the objective moral consequence of altruistic behaviors is their extinction. There are infinite other possibilities for an objective morality under theism and all are no less arbitrary than the possibilities for any subjective morality. Furthermore, in every scenario where people have the freedom to take whatever objective or subjective moral actions they choose, the subjectivity problem remains unresolved.

Now, if you want to link objective morality to human flourishing as you appear to have done in your response, then this can obviously be done by making "the state of cooperative coexistence" the objective standard without appealing to any form of theism at all.

(Note: I'm going to be away from my computer for about ten days and won't be able to immediately respond for a while. Your patience will be appreciated.)