Catholics need to sharpen our debating skills...and increase our charity

[Wozza]

Thus when a materialist argues that genocide is unacceptable, one has a right to question the rationality of that statement given their commitment to materialism. After-all, if materialism is true, there is no objective moral truth and thus all physical activities are permissible insomuch as there is nothing in truth that disallows any particular behaviour. There is no wrong way, only pragmatic preferences.

We can look at any event and individually determine whether it is right or wrong. That’s your relativistic approach: ‘X is wrong as far as I am concerned because of these conditions and these results’.

Now if something is objectively wrong, then it doesn’t matter what we individually think and it doesn’t matter about the conditions. X is wrong. Period.

The first problem is how we find out if X is wrong. To whom do we turn? Where is the information that tells us this objective fact? Assuming that it is not covered by scripture or the catechism or any papal declaration then I need you to tell me where this information comes from and how we can trust it. You need to address that if you could.

The second problem is that if you HAVE been told that X is wrong via scripture, the catechism or maybe a papal decree, then you have to decide personally if it’s correct. So we are back to making a personal decision. Failing that of course is the unnerving concept of Christians doing what they have been told without making that personal decision. And correct me if I’m wrong, but the Church expects you to take some personal responsibility in these areas. and we are back to personally deciding if X is wrong or not. If you also address that as well, please.

The third problem is that if X is objectively wrong, it implies that there are no arguments needed to be given in support of that claim. It’s an a priori statement. Meaning it requires no explanation. It’s a fact however we approach it. It just is. Just like my car is red. But…if we have someone who isn’t sure if an act is wrong or right, then you and I can try to point her in the right direction. I can give her all the reasons why I believe it to be wrong and point out the likely consequences and explain why they would be undesirable and you would say…well it just is.

But that’s, hopefully, what wouldn’t happen. You would give all the reasons for it being wrong as well. And point out the conditions under which it would be wrong. And the undesirable results. You would make an arguement - because a simple ‘It’s wrong because it’s wrong’ isn’t going to get you anywhere.

Consequent to that, we can see that even if you claim that something is objectively wrong, there are still arguments to be made as to the relative conditions and the possible outcomes. Even though an objective moral truth, by definition, doesn’t require any of those to be discussed, it must to have any weight whatsoever. So what could be the difference be between an objective claim that requires no explanation and one that does? So could you please answer that point as well?

 

[IWantGod]

I cannot.

You cannot see that if everything is physical, there are no objective moral truths, and also the statement “genocide is not wrong” is consistent with the idea that there are no objective moral truths?

You jest.

Given some objective circumstances and some subjective goals (goals are always subjective!) what should we do to achieve those goals?

Firstly i granted you the possibility of a subjective preference.

Secondly, objectively speaking, there is no ought or should beyond our subjective preference if materialism is true. In fact beyond our subjective preference there really is no reason to continue the existence of the human race. It’s just something we find ourselves doing, not that we ought to do it.

So the circumstances MUST be considered, and as such every ethical decision is relative - to the circumstances.

There is no must, and any ethics that is consistent with materialism exists under the branch of subjective preference, or what we generally find most desirable. But that has nothing to do with the question of whether or not human activities can be truly (as in objectively) described as right or wrong.

Perhaps that would come under meta-ethics.

 

[Wozza]

There is no must, and any ethics that is consistent with materialism exists under the branch of subjective preference, or what we generally find most desirable.

I think you are confusing subjective preference with that which we would benefit from personally . You seem to be basing part of your argument on that and it doesn’t necessarily follow.

Shall we kill everyone next door and move into their house? You seem to think that a personal preference here would mean that which benefits me personally, so yeah - why not kill them? But my personal preference would be not to gain a house at the expense of the lives of a few people.

Cue you saying that I’m a materialist so what would it matter it they died…

 

[Niblo]

I doubt that you can know what does and what does not move my heart.

What moves your heart? Hmmm…short in stature…longish from front to back…ideas WAY above his station…Am I close??

 

[IWantGod]

I think you are confusing subjective preference with that which we would benefit from personally

I not confusing anything, it is you and you seem hopelessly prone to that end. That you would prefer an outcome that is beneficial to your overall preference or attitude towards physical existence is irrelevant to the question of whether any physical effect can be truly described as right or wrong.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I think you are confusing subjective preference with that which we would benefit from personally

I not confusing anything, it is you and you seem hopelessly prone to that end. That you would prefer an outcome that is beneficial to your overall preference or attitude towards physical existence is irrelevant to the question of whether any physical effect can be truly described as right or wrong.

Then you need to address the points I raised above to back your assertion that there are objective moral facts.

 

[IWantGod]

Then you need to address the points I raised above to back your assertion that there are objective moral facts.

I really don’t need to do anything. You were having a difficult time as it is just accepting that if materialism is true there is no right or wrong way a physical system should act.

Any person who has had sufficient life experience (unless there is something wrong with them) can tell that the indiscriminate murdering of children is evil.

Accept it or reject it, that’s up to you.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Then you need to address the points I raised above to back your assertion that there are objective moral facts.

I really don’t need to do anything. You were having a difficult time as it is just accepting that if materialism is true there is no right or wrong way a physical system should act.

Any person who has had sufficient life experience (unless there is something wrong with them) can tell that the indiscriminate murdering of children is evil.

It is wrong. And there are reasons for it being wrong.

Now if you could just answer the points I raised to back up your assertion…?

 

[IWantGod]

It is wrong.

Then materialism is in error. Discussion over

 

[Neithan]

That is fine. So how shall we continue?

How about a clarification of terms, because I think the meaning of atheism needs clarification for it to be semantically useful: Someone who thinks the concept of god does not make sense is not an atheist, but an igtheist (metaphysical igtheist, epistemological ignostic, so an ignostic igtheist lol). For someone to claim they lack a belief in something, that something must have cognitive meaning. This should have its own thread in the philosophy forum though.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It is wrong.

Then materialism is in error. Discussion over

No, what you think is meant by materialism is wrong. I have showed you that. I have spent some time explaining that. Now surely you can answer the points I made which specifically address your viewpoint.

 

[IWantGod]

No, what you think is meant by materialism is wrong.

Materialism/metaphysical naturalism. All that exists is physical reality. All activity is physical activity, and any effect is the natural result of these including the things you are saying.

There are no non-physical entities if only physical things exist.

If you can’t get your head around that, then there is no point in furthering the discussion.

 

[Neithan]

If you can’t get your head around that, then there is no point in furthering the discussion.

This is the kind of thing the principle of charity is meant to avoid.

 

[IWantGod]

This is the kind of thing the principle of charity is meant to avoid.

Is it really uncharitable? If you explain your position a hundred times, and have to give a definition of things like materialism and metaphysical naturalism when you can get it off google (the very position he seeks to defend), i think my response is appropriate.

 

[Neithan]

You’ve reached a deadlock so what would be accomplished if the other person walks away, further convinced that they are right and you are wrong? Just an unproductive word game.

These are the initial steps Dennett recommends to introduce an actual debate (which as @Economist noted should be in another part of the forums anyway):

1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

I would further add that on anonymous Internet forums the scope of the debate should be narrowed and the pace should be slowed compared to a personal discussion because of the (significantly) higher risk of being misunderstood.

 

[Wozza]

…there is no point in furthering the discussion.

You can continue the discussion by addressing the points I raised.

 

[IWantGod]

You’ve reached a deadlock so what would be accomplished if the other person walks away, further convinced that they are right and you are wrong? Just an unproductive word game.

I appreciate what you’re saying, but i am debating on these forums from a position of ill health. I don’t always have the patience.

 

[IWantGod]

You can continue the discussion by addressing the points I raised.

My goal here was not to prove the opposite but to show why the following…

W: I am a materialst.
C: Oh, so genocide is perfectly acceptable!

…was not necessarily an unreasonable response, but rather it needed further explanation. I presented my argument as to why i think that.

I do not wish to continue the discussion any further.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You can continue the discussion by addressing the points I raised.

My goal here was not to prove the opposite but to show why the following…

W: I am a materialst.
C: Oh, so genocide is perfectly acceptable!

…was not necessarily an unreasonable response, but rather it needed further explanation. I presented my argument as to why i think that.

I do not wish to continue the discussion any further.

Then the points I raised will not be adressed and the questions to which they lead will remain unanswered.

 

[IWantGod]

Then the points I raised will not be adressed and the questions to which the lead will remain unanswered.

Perhaps somebody else will address them. Thanks for the discussion. God bless.