Inherent Value of life (secular)

[Bradskii]

Ah, an appeal to authority. Certainly I have no objection in principle in asking for expert opinion.

But what happens if you make a moral decision because you say that it is God’s will and another Christian takes a different position and also declares that it is God’s will? Does God hold two different views on the matter?

Failing that, one of you is wrong or both of you are wrong.

Please tell me how we solve this.

 

[HarryStotle]

No, Harry. You and I decide. Between us. You bring forth your arguments and I bring mine and we see who has the best one. And anytime that you declare that you win because your position is divinely authorised, then we part ways.

You must see that leaving moral determinations up to “You and I” without assuming that there is such a thing as moral truth in the abstract is a project doomed to fail.

Rather than you or I, I propose that if moral truths exist at all, they would be true and known to be true by a perfectly good moral agent with full knowledge of all particulars.

That way we begin on the same page – knowing that moral truth exists and our task is to find it.

By your lights, we are not even assuming moral truth exists, merely trading opinions about what we think with no underlying assumption that our discussion can get us anywhere.

It would be like discussing some scientific or mathematical topic without agreeing that a scientific or mathematical truth is there to be uncovered.

That would be a colossal waste of time, no? At least one of us just doesn’t seem interested in the truth because they are committed to the non-existence of moral truth to begin with.

Try that presumption with a discussion of mathematics or science and see where it gets you?

My assumption now is that you weren’t very interested in getting anywhere in the first place. So why would you and I carry on a discussion about moral truths where one of us – you – didn’t think we could arrive at anything like moral truths to begin with?

 

[HarryStotle]

Ah, an appeal to authority. Certainly I have no objection in principle in asking for expert opinion.

But what happens if you make a moral decision because you say that it is God’s will and another Christian takes a different position and also declares that it is God’s will? Does God hold two different views on the matter?

Failing that, one of you is wrong or both of you are wrong.

Please tell me how we solve this.

I am not appealing to authority. I am setting a starting point – that moral truths exist and are accessible.

That would mean if one, other or both of us, were perfectly morally good and were super-endowed with complete moral knowledge our opinions would NOT be merely opinions about morality but would align with the moral truth.

The starting point is the assumption that moral truth exists and is available to be known provided we know enough and are good enough. It sets the existence of a standard to begin with rather than leaving us floundering in the presumption that no moral truth actually exists and is, therefore, not available.

If the latter, then there would be no point to trading opinions since there is nothing to be gained right from the beginning. Again, a colossal waste of time.

 

[Bradskii]

You still haven’t told me how you find this moral truth. Please give me.some details.

 

[HarryStotle]

You still haven’t told me how you find this moral truth. Please give me.some details.

So are you agreeing that moral truth is there to be had, at least in theory?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You still haven’t told me how you find this moral truth. Please give me.some details.

So are you agreeing that moral truth is there to be had, at least in theory?

I’m working on the basis that you think there is. On that basis, tell me how you find it.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Bradskii:

You still haven’t told me how you find this moral truth. Please give me.some details.

So are you agreeing that moral truth is there to be had, at least in theory?

I’m working on the basis that you think there is. On that basis, tell me how you find it.

It would be pointless to start because no matter how well I put together an argument, you have left open for yourself the back door that no moral truth exists.

 

[HarryStotle]

Bradskii:

You still haven’t told me how you find this moral truth. Please give me.some details.

I’m working on the basis that you think there is. On that basis, tell me how you find it.

Actually, I did give you the basis, but you glossed over the key point.

Just ignore the God parts, and follow my point.

So, getting back to human beings, just as the proper treatment of vehicles to care for and maintain them long term, isn’t merely to “Do no damage to them,” the proper long-term view of human morality is more than merely “Do no harm.”

To properly care for a vehicle long term means knowing some basics about what kind of thing a car is, how to properly maintain its various components, how to change or repair those that are wearing out, and how to operate it on a daily basis, etc.

By analogy, then, human morality – if it is to be objective in the same sense that vehicle maintenance is objective – must involve knowledge of the kind of thing a human being is, how to develop and maintain its various aspects – physical, mental, emotional – and how to monitor when parts or aspects are wearing and in need of maintenance.

I suspect your “subjectivity” view plays a part here when we observe how cars can be used for different purposes. You might say that some vehicle owners purchase cars just to drive the crap out of them, some as purely functional transportation devices and because they have lots of cash they may not care to maintain them, etc.

Similarly, you might insist people have some kind of right to decide for themselves whether they choose to “care for the well-being of others” and the extent to which they ought to be compelled to do so.

That would, again, depend upon what kind of thing, precisely, human beings are.

…

…
Thing is, though, it isn’t what we imagine to be the case that is the significant thing. What matters is what really is the case. And THAT isn’t up to us to decide. It is the objective truth of the matter – what human beings really are – that counts.

The basis for morality is not merely “do no harm” but to objectively determine the kind of thing that human beings are and on that basis lay down the objectively moral principles for how human beings ought to be treated to sustain their well-being through time.

Human beings have a 1) a physical nature, 2) a psychological/intellectual makeup, and 3) an emotional life. So what is required to maintain and sustain the well-being of each of these through life?

Pretty objective, right?

 

[Bradskii]

The basis for morality is not merely “do no harm” but to objectively determine the kind of thing that human beings are and on that basis lay down the objectively moral principles for how human beings ought to be treated to sustain their well-being through time.

Human beings have a 1) a physical nature, 2) a psychological/intellectual makeup, and 3) an emotional life. So what is required to maintain and sustain the well-being of each of these through life?

Pretty objective, right?

No problem with any of that. If we hold different opinions and we need to make a decision on who is right, then I have no objection to the proposal that we have a physical, emotional and intellectual life as a basis for making decisions. Doesn’t sound a lot like your bag of chemicals but we have discounted that in any case.

 

[o_mlly]

Enough with the claims. Post any comment I have made from anywhere at any time that even suggests that because all moral acts are relative then they are THEREFORE justified.

Clever, but not the issue.

The issue on which we disagree (repeatedly) is whether all moral acts are relative to circumstances; the truth conveniently presumed in the conditional in your post above. We have not discussed your consequent as absent the truth in the conditional, the consequent is nonsense.

Here’s the former “Bradski” post from a prior thread:
*(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) *

If you are this “Bradski” and you still hold to the truth of that claim then back it up. Back pedaling just won’t do.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Enough with the claims. Post any comment I have made from anywhere at any time that even suggests that because all moral acts are relative then they are THEREFORE justified.

Clever, but not the issue.

The issue on which we disagree (repeatedly) is whether all moral acts are relative to circumstances; the truth conveniently presumed in the conditional in your post above. We have not discussed your consequent as absent the truth in the conditional, the consequent is nonsense.

Here’s the former “Bradski” post from a prior thread:
*(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) *

If you are this “Bradski” and you still hold to the truth of that claim then back it up. Back pedaling just won’t do.

This is the previous comment, which I stated is nonsense.

‘…all moral acts are relative then they are THEREFORE justified.’

They are NOT justified by being relative to the conditions. That is, they are NOT acceptable simply by being so. But they ARE determined to being acceptable OR NOT relative to any given set of conditions.

As I said, what I write and what you read seem to have very little in common.

 

[Lion_IRC]

“…How can the inherent value of every life…be explained soundly to atheists?”

I don’t think you can.
They claim to be rational and have higher IQ’s than the rest of us, but I have never seen one atheist convince another that human life is intrinsically “valuable”.

That’s because if atheism is true, people can decide for themselves whether and why (or why not) they should value the existence of any particular life. Recall that life (all life) allegedly arose spontaneously in an entirely undesigned universe for no reason whatsoever, and that whatever we humans call ourselves, we are simply yet another descendant in a long, evolutionary line of biological organisms.

 

[o_mlly]

This is the previous comment, which I stated is nonsense.

‘…all moral acts are relative then they are THEREFORE justified.’

They are NOT justified by being relative to the conditions. That is, they are NOT acceptable simply by being so. But they ARE determined to being acceptable OR NOT relative to any given set of conditions.

As I said, what I write and what you read seem to have very little in common.

I do read what you write. But what you write is often not coherent. For instance, if you search the thread for that “previous comment” that you so indignantly detest as attributed to you, you’ll find the poster is you. Did you create your own straw man so as to walk away from it? “The lady doth protest too much , methinks .”

The comment at issue is:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
If you walk away from it, we’re done. If not, defend it as it relates to calumny.

 

[o_mlly]

And morality IS relative. Always.

In case you wanted to see your claim repeated again in this thread.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

This is the previous comment, which I stated is nonsense.

‘…all moral acts are relative then they are THEREFORE justified.’

They are NOT justified by being relative to the conditions. That is, they are NOT acceptable simply by being so. But they ARE determined to being acceptable OR NOT relative to any given set of conditions.

As I said, what I write and what you read seem to have very little in common.

I do read what you write. But what you write is often not coherent. For instance, if you search the thread for that “previous comment” that you so indignantly detest as attributed to you, you’ll find the poster is you. Did you create your own straw man so as to walk away from it? “The lady doth protest too much , methinks .”

The comment at issue is:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
If you walk away from it, we’re done. If not, defend it as it relates to calumny.

I’m finding it difficult to believe that you cannot follow this. Of course I was the poster. Who posted this:

‘Where on EARTH do you get the idea that just because morality is relative that I am suggesting that moral acts can THEREFORE be justified?’

I asked you for an example. And you quoted me from way back saying that whether an act is good or not is relative.

Can you not see that those two comments are not the same?!

You were accusing me of stating that if someone holds an act to be correct, and it is relative, it is therefore justified. Which is complete nonsense.

BUT to make a decision IF an act is justified OR NOT, one needs to KNOW the conditions.

So if a person makes a statement about you, is it morally correct to do so? It is relative to the conditions but that in itself does not justify it. But a decision on whether it is morally correct depends upon them. With me so far?

So what.are the conditions? Well, we find that the statement is intentionally false and has been made to harm your reputation. RELATIVE TO THOSE CONDITIONS we can declare it morally wrong. And define the act as calumny.

Just like killing. To make a decision we need to consider the conditions. It is relative to the conditions but that in itself does not justify it. But a decision on whether it is morally correct depends upon them. Again, with me so far?

So what are the conditions? Well we find that the killing was unlawful and premeditated and done with willfull intent. RELATIVE TO THOSE CONDITIONS we can declare it morally wrong. And define the act as murder.

And in case you didn’t appreciate the secondary point being made: Just because we have a definition of an act which includes all the neccesary conditions by which we declare it to be morally correct or not does not make that act an objective one. It is relative to the conditions found within the definition.

 

[o_mlly]

Skipping your lengthy preamble, suffice it to say the only one I can find in this thread that accused you of “stating that if someone holds an act to be correct, and it is relative, it is therefore justified” is you. We agree what you posted is nonsense. So let’s move on to what we do disagree on.

So what.are the conditions? Well, we find that the statement is intentionally false and has been made to harm your reputation. RELATIVE TO THOSE CONDITIONS we can declare it morally wrong. And define the act as calumny.

The above argument makes sense only if made to to one who only had the vocabulary of a 5 year old.

Me: He’s lying.

You: Well, no. He’s just exhaling causing his vocal chords to vibrate and sounds to come out of his mouth. Nothing wrong with that now, is there?

That reads like a poorly trained defense attorney’s last ditch effort to save his guilty client.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Didn’t you tell ‘em you were only lying conditionally?

 

[Bradskii]

Skipping your lengthy preamble, suffice it to say the only one I can find in this thread that accused you of “stating that if someone holds an act to be correct, and it is relative, it is therefore justified” is you. We agree what you posted is nonsense. So let’s move on to what we do disagree on.

Bradskii:

So what.are the conditions? Well, we find that the statement is intentionally false and has been made to harm your reputation. RELATIVE TO THOSE CONDITIONS we can declare it morally wrong. And define the act as calumny.

The above argument makes sense only if made to to one who only had the vocabulary of a 5 year old.

Me: He’s lying.

You: Well, no. He’s just exhaling causing his vocal chords to vibrate and sounds to come out of his mouth. Nothing wrong with that now, is there?

That reads like a poorly trained defense attorney’s last ditch effort to save his guilty client.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Didn’t you tell ‘em you were only lying conditionally?

I have explained my position as best I can.

Thanks.