Objective Morality

[cpayne]

Yes, of course. Science is based on induction. So is most logic. Let’s see: metaphysics, science, and logic. Anything else you want to exclude from possible responses?

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes, of course. Science is based on induction. So is most logic. Let’s see: metaphysics, science, and logic. Anything else you want to exclude from possible responses?

I wouldn’t want to even exclude your strange beliefs about the place of induction - or even our mutual contempt but I expect that the moderator might disagree.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, of course. Science is based on induction. So is most logic. Let’s see: metaphysics, science, and logic. Anything else you want to exclude from possible responses?

You don’t understand – the idea is to rule out all human systems of thought and knowledge. Having done that, we can easily prove nothing is objective.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I wouldn’t want to even exclude your strange beliefs about the place of induction - or even our mutual contempt but I expect that the moderator might disagree.

We’re all friends here. We don’t use words like “contempt.” If we start doing that, we’ve passed the bounds of civilized debate.

 

[cpayne]

Actually (addressed to Kaninchen), I do not view you with contempt at all. From your posts, you seem remarkably intelligent but extraordinarily wrong about some things. I’d stick most of the people I teach with in the same category, and I’m still friends with all of them. Disagreeing with someone, even disagreeing profoundly (as we do), doesn’t equal contempt.

I would stick by my original post, however. What’s the use of arguing over objective moral knowledge when you have ruled out in advance the primary arguments against your position?

 

[cpayne]

On the place of induction in science: Science deals with observed regularities. If we test something 500 times and the results are the same each time, we can (scientifically and INDUCTIVELY) predict that the 501st time, the results will be the same again.

On the place of induction in logic: Take a deductive syllogism—perhaps a famous one like: “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” Not only valid, but true, and therefore sound deductive logic.

But where did the first premise come from: “All men are mortal”? From INDUCTIVE observation. You just can’t get away from induction, unless one goes into abstract reasoning such as that found in advanced math.

 

[cpayne]

Okay, looking back over my posts, I see where the “contempt” idea comes from: In the first post, I should not have mentioned that I thought the argument was getting boring. (What I actually said was “really, REALLY” boring.) That was uncalled for.

 

[SumEns]

Well, it’s the end of the conversation - this is a conversation for an entirely different thread, probably for an entirely different board. We couldn’t be further apart on any subject than we are on this one and the subject is huge.

I agree, and I apologize to the OP for getting so far off topic. However, you have not addressed any other point in my post. Either I made a point(s) you cannot refute, you are tired of arguing, or are digging in your heels and refuse to go beyond your ego and see the truth. I hope you can come to abandon your skepticism, and I hope I have helped to, at the very least, educate you in some way. Lay your preconeived notions to the side, and re-read both Aristotle and Aquinas (since Aquinas did take Aristotle’s philosophy farther). Peace

 

[Kaninchen]

Actually (addressed to Kaninchen), I do not view you with contempt at all.

Your post, not addressed to me but to everybody else about me, was an essay in contempt and its delivery.

 

[Kaninchen]

I agree, and I apologize to the OP for getting so far off topic. However, you have not addressed any other point in my post. Either I made a point(s) you cannot refute, you are tired of arguing, or are digging in your heels and refuse to go beyond your ego and see the truth. I hope you can come to abandon your skepticism, and I hope I have helped to, at the very least, educate you in some way. Lay your preconeived notions to the side, and re-read both Aristotle and Aquinas (since Aquinas did take Aristotle’s philosophy farther). Peace

After well over a decade of internet message boards, I’ve arrived at a point where some things come up and I just can’t be bothered talking anymore. A typical example is ‘evolution’, as soon as people make ‘creation science’ noises, that’s it.

The thing is, you see, message boards to me are not about being right or wrong, winning or losing, certainly they’re not about converting people or allowing people to believe that they can succeed in the futile task of converting me. No, they’re just about interesting and challenging conversations and, as somebody who had to ‘suffer’ Aristotle for no little time as a student, Aristotle and Aristotelian essentialism ain’t ever going to provide interest or challenge in my world.

 

[SumEns]

After well over a decade of internet message boards, I’ve arrived at a point where some things come up and I just can’t be bothered talking anymore. A typical example is ‘evolution’, as soon as people make ‘creation science’ noises, that’s it.

The thing is, you see, message boards to me are not about being right or wrong, winning or losing, certainly they’re not about converting people or allowing people to believe that they can succeed in the futile task of converting me. No, they’re just about interesting and challenging conversations and, as somebody who had to ‘suffer’ Aristotle for no little time as a student, Aristotle and Aristotelian essentialism ain’t ever going to provide interest or challenge in my world.

I hate to say it, but considering you have not argued against most of what I said I have to believe you are digging in your heels, or that you have realized that you can’t. I don’t know if this an ego thing, or a pride thing, but if you have not responded with any arguments I am left thinking I have at least put a nick in your skeptical armor. You may not like Aristotle, but you apparently cannot argue with him, and if you can’t touch him you can’t touch Aquinas. I am sorry to hear you have closed your eyes and mind to truth. Well if you are digging in your heels, there isn’t a point in continuing this. I hope you find the truth, or that it finds you.

 

[Kaninchen]

I hate to say it, but considering you have not argued against most of what I said I have to believe you are digging in your heels, or that you have realized that you can’t. I don’t know if this an ego thing, or a pride thing, but if you have not responded with any arguments I am left thinking I have at least put a nick in your skeptical armor. You may not like Aristotle, but you apparently cannot argue with him, and if you can’t touch him you can’t touch Aquinas. I am sorry to hear you have closed your eyes and mind to truth. Well if you are digging in your heels, there isn’t a point in continuing this. I hope you find the truth, or that it finds you.

Whatever you want to believe is ok by me - perhaps, just like with another poster here, it’s just a matter of you being far, far too smart for me.

 

[fix]

In other words: Save your typing fingers. A skeptic can always come up with some kind of response, even to the obviously true.

Thanks. That is my point. No matter what evidence or proof is put forward it is dismissed. The problem is not a lack of proof. The problem is she refuses to be persuaded.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thanks. That is my point. No matter what evidence or proof is put forward it is dismissed. The problem is not a lack of proof. The problem is she refuses to be persuaded.

“Prove that two and two is four without using mathematics.”

 

[fix]

“Prove that two and two is four without using mathematics.”

Yes, well put.

Her arguments are not new.

Ever see this?

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes, well put.

Her arguments are not new.

Ever see this?

I would never have claimed my arguments to be new.

Neither was I denying the existence of God, my inability to further this argument much longer today has to do with the imminence of Shabbat in my part of the world. Neither am I arguing that one should not embrace moral codes based on the religious perspectives that one holds.

My argument has been about whether it’s possible to establish an ‘objective morality’ - which, I have argued, causes more problems than it resolves - partly - for example - because one has to resort to ideas like ‘Aristotelean Essentialism’ in attempting to make the whole concept work. While that might prove a satisfying means to people who actually work within that paradigm, it doesn’t for the rest of us.

Neither does it have to.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would never have claimed my arguments to be new.

Neither was I denying the existence of God, my inability to further this argument much longer today has to do with the imminence of Shabbat in my part of the world. Neither am I arguing that one should not embrace moral codes based on the religious perspectives that one holds.

My argument has been about whether it’s possible to establish an ‘objective morality’ - which, I have argued, causes more problems than it resolves - partly - for example - because one has to resort to ideas like ‘Aristotelean Essentialism’ in attempting to make the whole concept work. While that might prove a satisfying means to people who actually work within that paradigm, it doesn’t for the rest of us.

Neither does it have to.

And as I have demonstrated, murder is objectively immoral.

 

[Johenz]

Wow! Did I open a can of worms or what?

Gimme some time to sort through all of this.

 

[ribozyme]

I post frequently on an atheist website. In one discussion I’ve been following, I ran across a post in which the poster states:

"Sin exists only in religion. If you’re talking about morals, well, that’s a whole other ball game. ** And morals are subjective.** You don’t get to tell me what I can and cannot do if I am not hurt another individual. Likewise, I don’t get to tell you what you can and cannot do as long as you aren’t hurting another individual. So no, you have no authority over me. It’s really as simple as that.

We are both bound by the laws of our countries/states/society etc.  If you want to be bound by the laws of religion, that's your perogative.  However, you have no right to try to bind me by the laws of your religion."

i found the atheist website here during a google perusal:

rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/8994

i am not particularly impressed with the rational responders squad as they advocate jesus mythism. i do agree that “sin” is subjective as it is merely a human construct and presupposes the existence of a capricious diety.

regarding objective morals, i am mostly a utilitarian; i advocate that we relentlessly strive to eliminate human suffering. however, i wonder what a “human” is in this ethical system as transhumanism is one means to eliminate human suffering. a glib answer of *Homo sapiens * doesn’t suffice.

 

[Johenz]

Yeah, ribozyme. I’ve posted extensively on the "Jesus Mythicist Campaign area there, arguing against Markan priority of the Gospels. Argumentation for the Jesus Mythicist position is weak at best, and their ancient documents/biblical “expert” isn’t all that he thinks he is.

Regarding you views on objective morality, could you define “transhumanism” for me?

Thanks