A New Moral Argument for ProfMTH - Version 2

[drsuessre14]

Thanks for the sub!/Answer to your question: no. Well, maybe... We'll see.

[FatGermanBastard]

- Premise one clearly presupposes morality without proving it.

- "We are not meant to be screwed" Why ? Because God exists and has something else in mind for us ? But that is what you are trying to prove !

Maybe I am missing or confusing something but if that is what you meant its clearly circular.

I could simply claim that morality does obviously not exist and therefore Christianity is wrong. Would you accept that ? Certainly not. At best your argument will convince those who already agree.

[drsuessre14]

About the presupposing thing: just tell me this: do you think we do wrong things?/The two reasons you give for our not being meant to be screwed are not ones I'd pick. Remember, I said what that premise meant: it means, We're not meant to do wrong things.

[FatGermanBastard]

As a moral nihilist how would I come to believe that we do wrong things ?

As an atheist how would I come to believe we are not meant to do "wrong" things - meant by whom ?

These two statements make no sense unless you take morality and theism for granted...but that's what you are actually trying to prove, right ?

[drsuessre14]

So, there is no thing in this world of which you would believe, "That is wrong" or "That is good"?/If you don't accept what I say about stuff being wrong, then you won't be able to understand what I mean by meant, I suppose...But for right now, I don't mean where not meant to do wrong things by someone... I don't *think* this will even come up in my argument when I finally get to God, so take that for what it's worth.

[FatGermanBastard]

Things are certainly right and wrong but not in an intrinsic moral, normative or absolute sense. I.e. if I want clean teeth it would be rationally and logically wrong but not morally wrong to use a hammer to clean them.

I do not believe that anything is (intrinsically) morally wrong or right. That means I do not believe that my emotions about anything correspond to a deeper, absolute truth or that morality exists as an independent part of reality (rather than just a description of reality).

[drsuessre14]

Ok. This is good, FGB. Because, although I disagree with you, in this argument, I don't want to mean by "some things are wrong" that they're also all the things you don't agree with. I just want people affirming that they do some things that are wrong, and I want to stop the analysis there. I will not bring up, in this argument, anything more about the nature of morality or moral claims. And, if I do, you can call me out on it.

[vbfl920]

"Things are certainly right and wrong but not in an intrinsic moral, normative or absolute sense."

Well, in what way then, are they wrong?

[FatGermanBastard]

"Well, in what way then, are they wrong?"

Emotionally and rationally.

[vbfl920]

Your emotions?

They happen to think they are being rational.

So, are they behaving objectively irrational?

[FatGermanBastard]

Don't understand you. Care to rephrase ?

[vbfl920]

Well, what did you mean by emotionally wrong?

Were you referring to your emotions or theirs? And how do say that their emotional state is wrong?

Also, is there such a thing as objective rationality, where you can say they are behaving irrationally?

They don't seem to think they are behaving irrationally.

So how could you establish that they are behaving irrationally.

[myintellectualjourny]

I would accept (2) We deserve punishment - from the secular perspective meaning (a) when someone does something harmful and experiences consequences he/she often "deserve" it in the sense that he brought the consequences on himself and (b) It is good for everyone in society that when people do certain harmful things that they experience consequences so the behavior is discouraged and minimized. That rather than in any theological deserving of punishment or discipline that is.

[drsuessre14]

I'm alright with this further characterization of (2) for now.

[thalamay]

1) "We do wrong things"

Well, since you don't wanna go to moral absolutes, this is already a difficult point. Terrorists don't fly planes into buildings because they think it's wrong, but because they think it's right. So who's doing the judgement on what's wrong and what's right?

"We deserve punishment for doing wrong"

Im a colloquial sense, I agree. But again it depends on who's judging. What I call right might be wrong in someone else's view and hence worthy of punishment. The way...

[thalamay]

...it works is that we as a society come together and define what's worthy of a punishment and what's not. It's called the law. The society is basically a very big subject and because it's so big, it can lead to the feeling of its rules being absolute, since each of us is just a tiny part and our personal view hardly makes a difference. But it's still subjective.

2) "We need an outside source"

Actually, there's not much to say. You have to make the case for that first. I don't see any reason...

[thalamay]

...why - assuming that we agree on premise one - the solution would have to lie outside of humanity.

4) "We're not meant to do wrong things"

That's not an observation at all, but an assumption. And by assuming that we're "meant" to do anything, you're implying a god. So I reject this premise on the grounds that a purpose for our lives first needs to be established.

the ramaining premises rely on the fones so far, so I won't comment on those.

[myintellectualjourny]

Yeah, I'd have the same objection to 4) as well.

[drsuessre14]

See my response to thalamay, and tell me what you think.

[drsuessre14]

So, you think that, eventually, human beings will come up with a way to make human beings perfect?/Isn't "We're not meant to do wrong things" almost a tautology? If they're wrong, we're not meant to do them, right?/I'm not implying God with this premise. It's the outside source premise where God will come from.

[thalamay]

Just for clarification:

By perfect, do you mean a human being who doesn't do anything wrong?

And by wrong, do you only mean morally wrong, or also things like confusing your socks in the morning and wearing two different colors?

Assuming that you mean a person who doesn't do anything that's morally wrong (using a definition like Kant's categorical imperative) then yes, I think it's possible for humans to achieve that on their own...

[thalamay]

...And I'm sure some actually live that way, like Buddhist Monks who won't even hurt a fly and only live off offerings.

Regarding the second part: What does "meant to do" mean? To me, that sounds like a purpose. Only something that has a purpose is meant to do anything. So either you invoke god by that question, or you also accept the purpose, I would give my life myself. But in that case, the only person I would have to answer for not doing what I was meant to do would be myself anyway.

[drsuessre14]

They might not hurt flys currently, but have they been perfect their whole lives?/I don't mean "meant to do" in any controversial way. I'm sure you've used that phrase without thinking about it too hard before. It's only in that not-too-intellectual meaning that I intend for that phrase. Like I said to FatGermanBastard, I don't intend to pull the rug out from under your feet with that phrase, and, if I do, you can call me out on it. I won't do it on purpose! I promise! ( :

[thalamay]

" have they been perfect their whole lives?"

Now you're switching the playing field though. No, I don't think that someone can avoid doing wrong things from birth on. If that's the goal, then humanity can never reach it, because it simply would be against our nature. Children will always try to grab the sweets when their parents look the other way.

[drsuessre14]

I'm not switching the playing field. What you just said in this post is what I've meant all along. All except for the "against our nature" bit. I might want to quibble with that a little later on. But, basically, this is what I've been trying to say all along. Sorry that it's been that hard to follow! Glad you got it now, though.

[drsuessre14]

I mean morally wrong.

[drsuessre14]

In response to your first quote of me: your arguments not clear to me. Just because there's disagreement on whether or not something is wrong doesn't mean it's not the case that either us or them is wrong. (Cont.)

[thalamay]

You have to define right and wrong before you can tell whether anybody is doing anything wrong. But when it's subjective, then you just can't do it. It would be like ordering all the colors by their beauty. You could come up with a list, but it would be only your opinion.

So is there a most beautiful color?

And is there a definition for doing wrong?

If not, the assertion that we all do wrong is simply without basis.

[drsuessre14]

It's not true that, for any thing, before you can understand it, you have to define it.

[thalamay]

I don't wanna play a semantics game here, but in order to "understand" a thing, you most certainly have to be able to define it first.

You can understand the consequences or effects of a thing without being able to define it, but not the thing itself.

When you say that all people do wrong things, you first have to understand what wrong is, otherwise, it would be like saying "all people do eftsaq"...it would be meaningless.

[drsuessre14]

I don't see how what I said amounts to playing semantics, but I understand why it is you might bock at what I said, on first glance. But actually, it's quite commonly accepted that you don't have to define things in order to understand them. Two ways of showing this come to mind immediately. First, in order to define, you must first understand. How could you define what, say, love means, without first understanding it?

[drsuessre14]

Second, it's surprisingly difficult to define things like "car", "game", and "table". In fact, there probably are no necessary and sufficient conditions for something's being a car, a game, or a table. But we still understand the words/concepts. And we still know how to pick obvious examples of each out.

[thalamay]

"I don't see how what I said amounts to playing semantics"

I'm sorry if that sounded like an accusation. What I meant was that I might sound as if I was playing semantics :)

[thalamay]

And yes, you're right in so far that defining a word necessitates understanding. But the point is that as soon as you understand it, you can define it. So if you can't define it, you don't understand it. If you use a word without defining it, it's just a word without meaning, so everyone fills in their own meaning, rendering it useless, especially when you try to derive a general rule from it

[vbfl920]

But could those terrorists JUSTIFY what they did, to the rest of us?