See? This is what too much knowledge does to people..it works against them..it leads to endless debating instead of endless living. For the record...I like CS Lewis the apologist...not CS Lewis the fiction writer.
Likewise, the nature of the "morals" (or rules) are not important - only that the group agrees to them. The fact that some rules might seem pre-determined (or even divine) is just because they are the most logical on the broadest scale.
Logic only applied to how best to achieve our goals. Whether or not something is logical has no comment on whether or not it is moral. You can use reason/logic to find the most efficient way to achieve your personal goals, and your personal goals can be moral or immoral. My argument is not about how to achieve your desires or find a balance, it is simply about observing the existence of objective morality and accounting for it.
I guess I just don't see morality as objective. When I wrote about some rules seeming to be pre-determined I was thinking of the ones like "no killing". It is easy to imagine a group mutally deciding to ostracize or otherwise remove individuals who behaved in this manner. Because logic can be applied to achieve personal goals in an immoral way (against the greater good) doesn't reduce its value when applied to goals on the larger scale.
When you talk about doing things like promoting the "greater good" you already presuppose objective morality.
If objective morality doesn't exist, then there are just goals. The goals cannot be good or bad, they can just be popular or not.
"no killing" is not a moral I would advocate. I would say that killing in specific instances is wrong. For example, "killing solely for entertainment" is intuitively (and objectively) wrong.
Substitute the term "greater good" with "will of the people" or maybe "general consensus" or " welfare of the group". Maybe these terms shoot closer to the mark that I'm aimin' at. Maybe some goals are so deeply ingrained as to be instictual and therefore seem to come from elsewhere.
If you think that killing is not wrong in all instances then I would think that you must apply logic to determine when a rule applies and when it does not.
I don't give broad examples like "thou shalt not kill". All moral questions have two parts, actions and intentions. If you only give one part, namely the action of killing, and make no mention of the intention (whether it be for self defense vs entertainment for example) you are going to find that the moral question has multiple possible outcomes (depending on what the intention is). Changing the intention changes the entire moral question.
Morality is a combination of actions and intentions. To say that an action is objectively wrong fails to account for intentions. That is not my argument. My argument is that a given pair of action + intention can be objectively right or wrong.
So action can't be separated from intent ... I'll have to think some more about that. Meanwhile, can we perhaps examine a "narrower" example? You labelled " 'killing solely for entertainment'...intuitively (and objectively) wrong". For the sake of argument (if you are still interested) I will contend that the intuitive element is evolutionary in origin and the objective element is non-existent. How do you conclude that it is objective?
"I will contend that the intuitive element is evolutionary in origin and the objective element is non-existent"
I also contend the intuitive element is evolutionary. However, our intuitions inform us that the action + intention you mentioned is objectively wrong. To accept the existence of moral intuitions and reject the conclusion is to deny the self-evident. In order to do that, you must have a good reason or counterargument.
If you were ready to accept the plausibility of intuition being a product of evolution then why do you insist on linking the intuition of morality to an outside source? I still don't understand how you arrive at objectivity through intuition - can you explain a little further how you mean "self evident"?
If I am hardwired to recognize that "killing non-consenting humans for entertainment is wrong" is a true statement of fact, then there must be some explanation as to why it is true.
As soon as a human is able to grasp the concepts in the question, the above statement becomes obviously true.
I think the point where I disconnect from this line of reasoning is where you jump from intuition to objectivity.
"If I am hardwired to recognize that "killing non-consenting humans for entertainment is wrong" is a true statement of fact, then there must be some explanation as to why it is true."
If the explanation is that "hardwired" or "intuition" or "instinct" has an evolutionary origin then where does the outside source come in?
On one side is the (sometimes selfish) desires of the individual and on the other is the "greater good" of the group. The nature of the group is not important. Religions, Political parties, Cultural groups, Families, Badminton clubs, bar crowds or prisons - all can have this dynamic applied.
What we're talking about here is very cut and dry Utilitarianism vs. Deontology. Now i'm not going to break down arguments of each, if you want to hear about that, take a philosophy 101 course. What I DO want to say here though, is that an objective moral imperative doesn't necessarily need to come from a higher power. Kant's categorical imperative is a very cut and dry rule that states that you can only do something if it can be universally applied and remain uncontradictory. No God required.
Phil 101 doesn't reference anything about morality. I didn't come across ethics until the 300 level classes.
The irony in appealing to Kant is that he made his own version of the moral argument for God's existence. I will have a video on Kantian ethics out eventually.
@Epydemic2020 It's true that providing a moral framework consistent with the existence of God was part of Kant's intention, but it was also his attempt to turn away from the wishy-washy subjectivity of utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and other frameworks of morality. I think the categorical imperative holds value even without the assumption of a divine being existing.
But the reality is "divine command" is fiction. Divine command was used as an excuse for the Israelite tribe to go around and butcher, torture and loot neighboring tribes. The "command" comes from the primitive barbarians who wrote the scripts in the old bible.
Thew real question is: do we dogmatically follow the morality of iron age, superstitious barbarians or from reasoned, thoughtful inquiry into the human condition after 2000 years of advancement. I think the answer is easy.
@Epydemic2020 I agree with you about desires and that morality is objective to the extent it serves an objective purpose or predefined standard. Secular humanism holds that human life, coexistence and happiness is the standard for morality. Whereas theism set's "god" as the standard which (in my opinion) is not objective.
If belief in "god" is held by faith then it follows that a morality believed to originate from god must also be accepted by faith. Faith and objectivity are incompatible.
I have a video on faith, I think it would be relevant. We seem to be operating under two different and contradictory meanings of the word.
I agree that the values espoused by secular humanism are objectively valuable. However, secular humanism cannot explain why that goal is "moral" as opposed to any other goal. If objective morality exists ( which I believe I can show it can) then secular humanism is unable to account for it.
@Epydemic2020 Morality is an "ought"--and oughts don't exist as absolutes floating in space. Morality, value and purpose are all CONTEXTUAL-- which for us means they exists to serve our needs as a human species. Thats' why it's better to say "human morality" or a "morality appropriate for human life".
It's not the task of morality to define it's purpose or standard; that is the role of philosophy. Morality only deals with the nuts and bolts toward acheiving this standard.
"Ted Bundy desired to rape , that does not mean he belived it was right"
If Bundy belived what he did what was right this is would be bad argument.
"That is why your desires are not the source of our morality"
Our desires are based of our instinct this goes sexuality,morality etc.
Let us pick an example of an amoral situation
Jim is a student he can either choose to have sex or prepare for his exam,he choses the second option .That doesn't mean desires don't dictate sexuality
"If Bundy belived what he did what was right this is would be bad argument."
I have a vid about bundy expressing his moral philosophy as well as clips from interviews if you are interested.
"That doesn't mean desires don't dictate sexuality"
That is not my argument. I am not talking about what people "do" desire, I am talking about how people "should" behave. The two are completely different.
"That is not my argument. I am not talking about what people "do" desire, I am talking about how people "should" behave. The two are completely different."
I am not usre what you mean by that but did you not say in the video.
"The mere fact that we can desire things that are immoral tells us that desires cannot be the source of our morality"
It has been proven that humans desires are affected by instincts wich can be attributed to evolution ,therefore things that favorise our survival.
If you see a big threatening creature you desire to run or kill it to protect yourself.
Morals existing in our instincst can be attributed to our instincts there is no reason to belive God is the one behind it.Actually a naturalistic explanation is better .Why do we not feel instinctive hate for gays even know God disaproves of it?
@FujiwaraNoGo "There are bases for moral objectivity under naturalism. Perhaps we haven't found them yet" If they haven't been found, how can you claim that they exist? If a person says "There is a God, proof just hasn't been found yet" would that be an acceptable assertion?
Epidemic: Idk if you remember me, I posted a video response (under the name debunker333 I think, it was a different username) but I do remember you saying that you had something like "logical deductions to prove god" or something like that, I don't remember exaclty. If you remember what I'm talking about, would you mind PMing them to me, or tagging me in a video or something, I'd be very interested t hear what they are.
I remember you. We had a convo on aim as well. I did say that there exist several deductive arguments for the existence of God. They are very often misunderstood so I am making my way through each one as thoroughly as I can before moving on. So far I am working on the moral argument. I also hope to address others like the teleological and cosmological argument and even present a few original arguments I am working on.
I believe that morality comes from society. Whatever society deems is socially acceptable, and morally acceptable, is just that, deemed moral. For example:
The ancient Aztecs found it moral and just to sacrifice hundreds and thousands of humans a day. We see this as immoral, because our society has deemed it immoral.
Also, not so much as 150 years ago it was moral and common to marry sisters or cousins, which now, is usually deemed unacceptable.
While you do that, let me add my voice to dhcrazy333's. A topical example of this truth is the 'Skins' controversy. Now, that programme has a US and UK version. In both nations underage sex is both illegal and considered morally wrong. However, in the UK a 17yr old having sex won't raise an eyebrow, in the US it is enough to outrage the press just by it's depiction, entirely because our perceptions of 'underage' are different. Romeo & Juliet was about 14 yr olds, darned Shakepedo
@Epydemic2020 and to go on with that, I am also proposing, that while it's based on society at the time, it may not offer solutions in every situation. I don't think there is one moral law that can answer every scenario, so the way I view morality is based on society for the general morality, and it may vary from the societal standard in given situations (such as, do u kill 1 innocent person to save 5). Morality is too complex to have an end all theory, but yes, i think most comes from society
We can show not only that a naturalistic basis for morality hasn't been found, but that it cannot be found. I will be explaining that more in my next vid coming out tomorrow.
In the vid, I will show that "the edicts of an arbitrary God" is not what I use as the base for objective morality.
"whose existence is yet to be proven". The purpose of the moral argument is to prove the existence of God. Syllogism included in my latest and upcoming video.
Moral beliefs cannot come from education and analysis. Eduction and analysis can only help me better understand reality and therefore better understand when I am violating moral principles. God is necessary to serve as the foundation of morality. No foundation for objective morality can exist under naturalism.
Of course what you desire tells you what is right or you would never do what is right. I think you are conflating desire with something else, action requires desire. You may desire something a great deal but if you do not act upon it, you desire something more that prevents your action..it is that simple.
I disagree Ep. Morality is a projection of SPECIFIC aspects of human desire. - specifically involving a collision between self-interest and empathy.
Murdering an innocent man is not moral (as we mean) because of the conflict with empathy. It also fails to be moral from the well-being vantage point given killing some people for their organs for others considered at the time more important would overall REDUCE happiness in society. So it's GOOD that we have laws against such behavior.
It's only concern for a greater degree of human well-being in society that presents such behavior - as stealing a relatively less important individuals organs for anothers - problematic. That protection of a greater well-being is both a question of concern for our own organs (self-interest) and also for the individuals that would be effected other than us - those we know or otherwise (empathy.)
These human desires are at the heart of what we mean by "morality."
I agree that certain desire are right, but given your framework when two desire conflict (like say rational selfish-interest and empathy) how do you determine what the "right" one is? How do you determine how you "should" behave?
I saw the response and I think this is a confusion. I agree with his view. Morality is not defined by what we desire. It is a question of maximizing human well-being. But human nature - especially the desires regarding self-interest and empathy - are core to what is behind our moral concerns in the first place. How we define what is moral ultimately also involves reason and goes beyond blind application of but rather informed pursuit of these desires.
Great question. I think the answer is no. We needn't desire to "maximize human well-being" directly - or from a standpoint of "desire" alone - to embrace it as the ultimately goal of morality. Morality goes beyond these two more desire-related aspects of human nature - self interest & empathy - to also involve the rational aspect of our nature. This helps explain how we go from self-interest & empathy applied more tribalisitcally to our embracing cooperation between groups for example.
So in essence starting with our basic natural concern for self-interest, capacity for empathy, and ability to use our brains, we can rationally ascend from placing value in our own interest at the expense of others around us, to placing value on pursuing our interests to the benefit of others within our immediate group but at the expense of other groups, to seeing our interest and that of our groups interest more in cooperating with other groups also. AKA: maximizing well-being.
A blind unthoughtful pursuit of gratifying our immediate concerns for self-interest and (by empathy) the interests of some others (if for example only those we know) won't get us to an embrace of a concept of morality that defines the ultimate good as maximizing well-being in general. Rational thought / Reason has to become involved to get us there. So again, to your question, in a sense "desiring" it & embracing it r distinct.
No not without a reason. But precisely that it takes a reason. Naked desire alone without reason - or blindly pursued desire (if you will) - will not get us all the way there. It takes reason to get to an understanding of morality that is defined in a way distinct from whatever you feel in your gut is the thing to do in the moment (which may or may not give any credence to the well-being of others or even if others not necessarily those beyond your personal friends/family.)
Consider how morality is basically a matter of social expectations. Have you ever heard of "honor amongst thieves"? The point being people can have expectations of fairness within a certain set of relationships and then turn around and pay no mind to them in relation to some individuals outside that set. But rationality applied to these desires that are always there (self-interest & empathy) that gets us embracing well-being in general as the goal (aka:"Enlightened Self-Interest")
For many us to some degree w/in a lifetime & also for many societies across history, its taken an experiential process, expanding our sense of empathy towards others "outside" our group & changing how we see that our own interests and tied up in the interests of others (not just because we come to care and thereby feel good or bad based on the situation of others-but cooperation between groups is better than conflict & violence or protecting anothers freedom can be protecting yours.)
(B1) Reason is just a methodology not a destination. You have to desire something before you can reason your way to or away from it. you cannot reason peace is better than war without the desire for the benefits of peace.
(B2) Morality starts with an indoctrination from your environment more so from your caregivers.
(B3) Yes people change their values over their lifetime and this is for many reason that this happens and sadly not by the means of reason most of the time
Neither maximizing happiness or just pleasing God is an adequate moral foundation.
I behave morally because I recognize there is an objective standard of morality. I realize that an objective standard of morality can exist if and only if God exists. Therefore God must exist.
Long story short, I am an ethical intuitionist. We have innate knowledge of a realm of moral truths. This gives us good reason to think that objective morality exists and no reason to think it fails. The best counterargument is "the argument from disagreement" which I have addressed at length.
"why must this be so"
Because OM is possible if theism is true and not possible if it is false as I explained in the vid (see the is-ought gap for more info)
But regardless, if your standard of morality is based on what you believe your god has decided is moral, then you are basing your morality on the subjective moral standards of that god (unless of course you believe that your god is a slave to these standards & not the author)
Assuming you believe that your god is the author, & assuming that you are following these standards correctly, then you are infact following a subjective standard of morality.
"if your standard of morality is based on what you believe your god has decided is moral"
I don't believe morality is based on whatever God decides. Since I don't hold that view, I don't feel the need to defend that position. I don't argue that morality is something external to God nor internal to Him, I argue that His very nature IS the standard.
The thing that annoys me most about apologists like this guy is the fact that they cherry-pick and strawman every argument. Notice how quickly he zoned in on 'personal desires' , something that was never part of ShwaNerds argument, and completely ignored the bit about improving happiness of the community while REDUCING SUFFERING... that's a big point that's completely lost on every apologist i've ever had this discussion with. It's dishonest rhetoric and nothing more.
For the record, his comments on personal desires directly followed the question "what is your source of morality". Also, with standard utilitarianism the foundation of morality is a position known as "sentimentalism". There was no intentional cherry-picking or strawmanning going on here.
Stay tuned for the next video and all will be explained.
@Epydemic2020 It doesn't need to be intentional to be dishonest. In my experience with Christian Apologists i've realized that they can hear very well... they just have a really hard time listening.
@Epydemic2020 He said he had a personal desire for all of humanity to thrive or something similiar to that affect. He wasn't speaking as if he was basing his morality on human desires. You took what he said and applied it in a different context that had nothing to do with what he meant.
@Epydemic2020 If U don't believe in divine command theory/voluntarism (whatever) then you are in the same boat as an atheist to figure out what is the best moral code to live by so I am not understanding what your motivation is. You seem to disagree with some Christians on things. Why aren't you responding or critiquing them? It is ok to believe in Christianity whatever your reasons. The thing I find strange about theists is that they are bothered by the fact that some people don't.
@Epydemic2020 That is the opposite of what you said in one of your videos. If you believe in divine command theory then you are dependent upon God's will.
First, have you started to create a full syllogism for your position on this whole morality thing yet? If so I would really want to see it. If not.I would really want to see one? haha I don't want you to feel like I'm telling you to do that I just think it would be cool to read and helpful.
2nd what would you do in regards to your organ harvesting question?
Lastly, I just got a really nice webcam so I'm gona jump into this whole thing soon, any advice?
I used to include the syllogism in all of my videos. My position is:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.
Therefore God exists.
I would not harvest the organs of the homeless dude.
I use a script to keep my vids short and concise. You may want some program to help edit out mistakes (sony vegas trial, windows movie maker, etc) and have tough skin; people on the internet are kinda rough sometimes.
@Epydemic2020 "I would not harvest the organs of the homeless dude." I hope not. That is a basic kindergarten Golden Rule application. I can't believe you are making it so complicated. You misrepresent the idea of humanism.
Shwa is a specific type of humanist. He expressed a utilitarian philosophy. Standard Utilitarians would say that you should harvest the organs of the homeless dude.
@Epydemic2020 I listened to his entire video & I did not get a utilitarian philosophy out of his argument at all. I think U R trying to read between the lines, but there is actually nothing there to read. He did not even get very specific about his philosophy, he just asserted some very vague notions. He is a secular humanist which is partially about the idea of human rights. Where do you get idea that it suggests we should harvest organs of homeless people? Strawman?
@Epydemic2020 Techinically, you have not proven 1 in your list. It isn't even a logically coherent premise. I agree with number 2 to a certain extent, but it is a still contingent upon several factors working together.
@Epydemic2020 Leviticus - 20:13''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.''
...now I could be wrong, but Im pretty sure that all Christians believe Jesus was righteous ...so any words that came out of his mouth would also have to be righteous and morally perfect? ...morally unchanging also?
@Epydemic2020 So the God of the Old Testament is not a member of the Trinity? ...and the God of the New Testament (The one Jesus prays to on several occasions, including on the cross) ..is not the same God that is in the Old Testament? ...And you are also stating that Jesus is not a member of the Trinity and so is not ''one'' with the God(s) of the Old or New Testament? I quoted the exact words from the Deities (The Fathers, Jesus', The Holy Spirits) mouth. I did not quote a member of the...cont
general Earthly population who is making laws regarding that populations social outlook. You say we get our morality from God. This is Gods (Jesus') unchanging ''good'' word. If God imposes a social law which specifically contradicts a ''good'' moral value/instruction (i.e. Thou shalt not kill) ...how can you label his sense of morality ''good'' or ''objective''? He is imposing laws which force people to be immoral by his own standards!!
"thou shalt not murder" is not some sort of categorical imperative. Instances of justified killing takes place. Jesus Himself sets up a moral hierarchy where he says the two greatest commands are to love God and love your neighbor.
At no point does a statement "thou shalt not murder" imply that self defense, capital punishment, or other forms of killing are necessarily immoral.
@Epydemic2020 ''"thou shalt not murder" is not some sort of categorical imperative.''
First of all, its ''thou shalt not kill''. To ''murder'' is to kill with the specific intent to do so. God states that ''killing'' is immoral ...which covers all forms of killing. By what objective criteria are you stating that this is not an imperative? Is there an appendix to the Bible ...or foot notes stating you can subjectively interpret a divine command to suit ...cont
''Instances of justified killing takes place. Jesus Himself sets up a moral hierarchy where he says the two greatest commands are to love God and love your neighbor.''
...I completely understand that killing is sometimes justified. But I also recognise that the word of your all knowing, all loving, perfectly moral creator never ever expresses any justification for the numerous atrocities he carries out on the people of this planet ...cont
within the Bible. He never even justifies the torture he gives himself (Jesus), when it is well within his power to simply ''forgive''. He tries to justify it ...but it is not a good justification given that he is all powerful and well able to be in the presence of sin / evil in any case (Job: makes wagers with the devil concerning Jobs loyalty). The God of your Bible never presents any justification for making it law to kill two consenting homosexuals ...therefore negating the ...cont
need to adhere to the ''Thou shalt not kill' commandment. You might turn around and say (referring to Job) that God doesn't need to justify his actions, laws or commandments to us mere mortals. But that's plain nonsense. If he felt the need to justify Jesus' sacrifice (badly I might add. he never provided an adequate justification considering he is all powerful!) then there is no reason he should not have to justify the law of killing two consenting males. You say that the moral commands...cont
are hierarchical in nature. Well which is higher up or more important??? The commandment not to kill ...or the law to kill homosexuals??? Are you willing to state that these people had more of a moral obligation to execute homosexuals than to obey the ''thou shalt not kill'' commandment??? Even if it was ''thou shalt not murder'' and not ''kill'' ...which of these to commands/laws takes precedent over the other? I take it that you agree that ''thou shalt not kill'' is more important? In ...cont
which case, why did God create a blanket law on executing all homosexuals even though if there was a hierarchical nature to his laws / commandments (I personally don't believe there was ...you are just using desperate apologetics) this law could never be put into force??? Or do you believe it is more important to kill execute consenting homosexuals than uphold a divine moral command not to kill???
''At no point does a statement "thou shalt not murder" imply that ...cont
self defense, capital punishment, or other forms of killing are necessarily immoral.''
...Again ...I do believe it is ''kill'', not ,''murder''. And how can a blanket law on executing homosexuals be in aid of self defense or be justified as a ''capital punishment'' offense considering we are talking about an all loving, unchanging God? Are you now stating that it is not ''necessarily immoral'' to walk into a gay couples bedroom, drag them outside and execute them? And I don't want to ...cont
hear the ''it was a different time'' argument. Gods moral views, commands and laws should be unchanging considering he is all knowing, all loving and the source of all ''objective'' morality and values.
''I have made a video on this if you want a better explanation. It is called "absolute objective morality".''
Cough, Cough *Cop out!!* Cough. I have brought up many arguments here and now that I would like you to address! Considering everything I have just said? ...Is it / was it, more of a moral imperative to execute consenting homosexuals than it is / was ''not to kill''? This is not a difficult question!
The two moral imperatives you are bringing up don't even conflict. Don't murder and don't have capital punishment are not mutually exclusive. Also keep in mind that under a theocracy the Jews were basically in a contract to God and held to a higher standard (not a diff morality, but stronger punishments given the direct communication with God).
@Epydemic2020 ''The two moral imperatives you are bringing up don't even conflict.''
You believe that ''Thou shalt not kill'' (not just murder - it wouldn't matter in any case) ...does not conflict with: ''If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely BE PUT TO DEATH; their blood shall be upon them.'' What kind of cognitive dissonance have you got going on that allows you to see no conflict here??? You say ...cont
killing under certain circumstances is acceptable and I agree. ...but how is killing two consenting homosexuals a form of self defense??? Why should it be punished with execution i.e.Capital Punishment? What is the justification here?? Please tell me? If you believe that this type of execution is ''morally justified'' (LOL!!) and therefore trumps the moral ''thou shalt not kill / murder'' command ...then provide the justification? ...and then tell me why that justification does not apply...cont
today but it did then? This considering that God is morally perfect, all loving, all knowing and unchanging???
The rest of your argument is a red herring ...non sequitur. It does not address the obvious contradiction in these supposed ''objective'' morality statements from God. Are you telling me that todays western society is not as morally righteous as the Jews of older days? ...and in order to be as ...cont
morally righteous as them ...we should be executing consenting homosexuals? This would take us more closer to moral perfection? ...as this type of needless execution of homosexuals is practicing ''good'' morality at a higher standard?
You are missing the crux of my argument. Morality doesn't change, but people are held to different standards. Priests go by a priestly code, which has rules and punishments not suitable for the non-priestly population. Members of a theocracy hold themselves to a higher standards with rules and punishments not suitable for non-jews.
You are essentially arguing that it would be "closer to moral perfection" to hold everyone to the priestly code. It just doesn't follow.
@Epydemic2020 I have to say it man ... behind the serious exterior, you are just as crazy as any Fundy is when your beliefs on morality are examined.
''Members of a theocracy hold themselves to a HIGHER STANDARDS with rules and punishments not suitable for non-jews.''
...so basically what you are saying is that to execute a consenting homosexual couple is to practice a higher standard of morality? ...and you are completely comfortable ...cont
with this idea? It does not phase you? Are you crazy??? It does not bother you that your own perfectly moral God has morality laws which say it is not only acceptable, but it is REQUIRED, to execute consenting homosexuals? ...and that these laws are of a higher standard? Regardless of the group of people these laws are aimed at (God believes such executions are moral for these people), there is absolutely no justification for this as far as I can see, I have ...cont
repeatedly asked you for one and you have repeatedly refused to give me one. How can you not see the problem here??? God told the Jews not to kill. He also told the Jews to execute homosexuals. Even if we were to accept a hierarchical nature to these commands / laws - (I don't by the way. You have no justification other than a reference to Jesus stating that loving God is most important. As far as I can see ...all other laws and commands are on an equal footing. Prove otherwise ...cont
without special pleading!!) - ...surely the ''thou shalt not kill command'' is higher up?
''You are essentially arguing that it would be "closer to moral perfection" to hold everyone to the priestly code. It just doesn't follow.''
...It most certainly does follow. You are the one stating that to execute homosexuals ...is to practice morality at a higher standard. Surely practicing morality at a higher standard is ...cont
...getting you closer to moral perfection / goodness. Like ...how does this reasoning not follow? Your apologetics are terrible here man. You have no justifications ...just paper thin excuses!! A God that says it is lawful for ANYONE in any time or age, or ANY SPECIFIC GROUP to EXECUTE someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is a morally bankrupt, unloving God who is practicing arbitrary and subjective moral double standards.
Higher standards does not mean "higher standards of morality". I said numerous times that we are all on the same standard of morality.
Here is an example in our legal system, adults are punished more severely than adolescents. This is not to say that adults have a higher standard of morality, just more severe punishments for moral infractions.
@Epydemic2020 ''Here is an example in our legal system, adults are punished more severely than adolescents.''
...that is because adults are literally held to a higher standard of morality, and rationality within society. Kids are deemed less culpable for their actions because they don't understand the moral implications (or otherwise) of their actions. In any case ...your argument is ridiculous as even though a child might not be punished for a misdeed as an adult would; ...cont
...a child murdering another person would be deemed by society to be just as immoral as an adult doing it. We understand that the child has not developed enough to realise this though ...hence, we don't punish them as harshly. But priests and lay people are all of maturity. An adult lay person of those times would be able to determine the morality of a law as easily as an adult priest. You don't need priestly qualifications to comprehend a moral dictum. I want you to tell ...cont
me what is morally ''good'' about anyone executing a homosexual at any time in this Earths history? What is ''objectively good'' about anyone within any society carrying out such a command from God? ...especially considering God has told the exact same people that killing is immoral! Or did ''thou shalt not kill'' not apply to the priests? If you believe so ...give me line and verse please? I would also like line and verse which states that the law condoning the execution ...cont
of homosexuals was specifically, and only, given to priests? ...and then tell me how these homosexual executions were ''objectively morally good'' back in those times? ...and then tell me why they are not ''objectively morally good'' anymore ...even though God is unchanging and morally absolute...?
As always, Epy, I have huge problems with your line of thinking.
In your argument against using maximal happiness as the standard of right & wrong, you implied that our moral intuition trumps any other moral standard we might try to use (ie. if our assessment conflicts with our moral intuitions, the standard we're applying must not be correct). In effect, that means we should trust that whatever we feel is right or wrong is objectively right/wrong.
Here was my argument: "We have no reason to think maximizing happiness is always equivalent to morally good, and we have reason to think the two are not always equivalent."
Shwanerds foundation of morality isn't a valid reason to support his conclusion that happiness = morality. In other words, even if his claim was somehow true, he wouldn't know it because his method is flawed. Intuition contradicts his position. We have nothing for it and at least 1 thing against it.
Are you seriously suggesting that God created his own nature?
That is like saying God caused his own existence. In order to cause something you would have to first exist, so existence is something that is impossible for you to cause (without logical contradiction).
Christians argue that God is eternal (meaning his nature aka essential properties are as uncaused as he is and exist out of necessity).
@Epydemic2020 So by what means can you assert that god is inherently good or that his nature is?
If god tells you to kill people (and there are various cases in which he does) and your conscience balks (such as killing a child for being disobedient for example, or the genocides in israel) Is God not acting against his own nature? If you FEEL bad, then it is going against your inherent instinct not to harm people. That thing YOU claim is a basis for claiming objective morality exists.
@kelarael Also, if god is uncaused and eternal, why must he have a nature at all? Why would he not be a mish mash of all encompassing randomness? Why must god be anything at all? What is your reasoning for this assertion? You certainly can't have any evidence.
Why would god not be the perfect balance of good and evil, encompassing and committing acts of both?
Morality is based on a choice between competing alternatives. If god didn't choose his nature and had no say on the beliefs he has, on what basis can he consider them good or bad? On what basis can you judge god as good? You can't buddy. No matter how many apologetic backflips you twist yourself into, the problem remains. God is simply god and what he commands is simply what he commands. Your definition of what constitutes goodness is a viciously circular tautology.
God has beliefs? really? There are some things that God can not do - some things that are contrary to His very nature and existance. For instance, God can not learn - since He already knows it all. So in what sense does God have beliefs according to you? I guess God could "believe" in something, but that's just irrelevant because He would know whether it were true or not. God is the essence of morality and goodness, His nature determines those things, He wouldn't choose them.
In what sense does god have beliefs? Read your bible. He believed the world was good (until he changed his mind and flooded it. He believed gays having sex with each other should be killed for it. He believed slavery was not something to be condemned universally. He believes witches, wizards, necromancers, unicorns, talking snakes, and talking donkeys have actually existed at one point or another. He believes many things based on what he has said directly in "the word".
@bdwilson1000 No,no no.. I think you are trying to avoid the implication of your statement that God has beliefs - If there is God, He doesn't need to believe, since He KNOWS absolutely how things really are. He knows how things ought to be - we have an idea of that when God says after He had created everything, that it was very good. But this didn't last, since human-race fell in to sin... So it's not that God now believes that everything is not good, He knows it - as do we.
You haven't answered anything. On what basis can god consider his nature "good"? Simply asserting that whatever his nature happens to be qualifies as good (despite the fact that he had no choice in the matter)..and considering that his actions or commandments aren't based on the consequences they have on sentient beings, God still has no rational basis for declaring his own actions as objectively "good". They simply are what they are..and you are still defending a circular position.
It is not subject to subjective desires. It exists out of necessity and is not arbitrary. It is not a byproduct of a mind. Therefore it would be objective.
"I have revised my position on several biblical issues."
Yes, but have you ever thrown out anything wholesale because every revised position fails?
Well, the International Prototype Kilogram is the standard for the kg, but that doesn't mean that "Why is the International Prototype Kilogram the standard for kg" is a nonsensical question. I could present you with a history of how the IPK came about. But okay, let me pose it from a different angle:
How did it come about that Yahweh's nature is the standard of good? If Yahweh's moral nature had been something else, would you know? And how would that impact morality ? How come Yahweh's nature is what it is? Happenstance?
" How come Yahweh's nature is what it is? Happenstance?"
No, necessity. God's nature is not arbitrary because it exists out of necessity. Uncaused things cannot "happen to be" a certain way. Happenstance is the one answer that can't possibly apply.
Not that I am going to defend Desirism here, but there is a following for Desirism, which basically argues that Desires are what determine morality. Just saying, there is definitely more there to be argued.
I don't think it matters how many people follow desirism. Desirism could just as easily apply to my desire to eat ice cream and avoid broccoli. No "right" or "wrong" can be derived from that. It doesn't solve the major problems like the naturalistic fallacy or is-ought gap and it runs counter to our intuitions. There seems to be no reason to believe it and multiple reasons to doubt it.
I don't think you should be so quick to judge Desirism; though I did neglect to mention that it is a consequentialist theory of ethics, and thus should be able to cross the is-ought gap easily. The founder Alonzo Fyfe (his blog is called "Atheist Ethicist") has made many blog posts discussing the merits of Desirism.
I do agree though it doesn't matter how many people subscribe to Desirism.
I was just making a point that desires do hold a fundamental roll in some ethical theories.
Consequentialist views do not bridge the is ought gap easily. In fact,they do not bridge the is ought gap at all. Those are exactly the views which were originally critiqued by Hume's is-ought gap.
I haven't the willpower to argue with you on how Desirism attempts to cross the is-ought gap, but here are two articles from the creator of the theory on the subject:
I find that most fine-tuned objective theories haven't much problem crossing the gap, and that it is subjective ethical theories like DCT that are often unable to demonstrate an ought from is.
Strange to see that you are still trying to support moral arguments when God always fails at moral arguments. I was actually looking forward to a video trying to refute my video about you. It never happened, but that's likely because there is no way to support any objective morality without pretending there is a god in the first place.
If the moral argument did fail, it would not be because of the arguments you made. Your objections only indicated that you didn't understand what I was arguing. You accused me of making an appeal to emotions and an appeal to majority, and said I was presupposing God's existence (all of which are clearly not the case as I have defended ad nauseum). I addressed your video within the comments section.
You argued things like "(Nazis) they believed they were doing a service to the country, and it could be argued they actually were... people simply have different moral values and you can't show any objective source for the right moral values. Because of that your belief in their objectivity are unsupportable."
That is a version of the argument from ignorance. Not only did I address that argument, but used that exact analogy in my video doing so.
CEO's ?!?!?! Homeless people on wellfare?! That example was total class warfare bait. Harvest the CEO's bank accounts and give them to the poor homeless guy on welfare =P
See? This is what too much knowledge does to people..it works against them..it leads to endless debating instead of endless living. For the record...I like CS Lewis the apologist...not CS Lewis the fiction writer.
psalmsurfer1 4 months ago
G. E. Moore, not J. E.
h0tsex0r 1 year ago
@h0tsex0r
oops. I got it right in my script but not in my speech.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
- - - cont'd
Likewise, the nature of the "morals" (or rules) are not important - only that the group agrees to them. The fact that some rules might seem pre-determined (or even divine) is just because they are the most logical on the broadest scale.
doireallyneed1 1 year ago
@doireallyneed1
Logic only applied to how best to achieve our goals. Whether or not something is logical has no comment on whether or not it is moral. You can use reason/logic to find the most efficient way to achieve your personal goals, and your personal goals can be moral or immoral. My argument is not about how to achieve your desires or find a balance, it is simply about observing the existence of objective morality and accounting for it.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020,
I guess I just don't see morality as objective. When I wrote about some rules seeming to be pre-determined I was thinking of the ones like "no killing". It is easy to imagine a group mutally deciding to ostracize or otherwise remove individuals who behaved in this manner. Because logic can be applied to achieve personal goals in an immoral way (against the greater good) doesn't reduce its value when applied to goals on the larger scale.
doireallyneed1 1 year ago
@doireallyneed1
When you talk about doing things like promoting the "greater good" you already presuppose objective morality.
If objective morality doesn't exist, then there are just goals. The goals cannot be good or bad, they can just be popular or not.
"no killing" is not a moral I would advocate. I would say that killing in specific instances is wrong. For example, "killing solely for entertainment" is intuitively (and objectively) wrong.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020,
Substitute the term "greater good" with "will of the people" or maybe "general consensus" or " welfare of the group". Maybe these terms shoot closer to the mark that I'm aimin' at. Maybe some goals are so deeply ingrained as to be instictual and therefore seem to come from elsewhere.
If you think that killing is not wrong in all instances then I would think that you must apply logic to determine when a rule applies and when it does not.
doireallyneed1 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020,
Could you offer another example that is, perhaps, more universal or less open to exception than 'Thou shalt not kill'?
doireallyneed1 1 year ago
@doireallyneed1
I don't give broad examples like "thou shalt not kill". All moral questions have two parts, actions and intentions. If you only give one part, namely the action of killing, and make no mention of the intention (whether it be for self defense vs entertainment for example) you are going to find that the moral question has multiple possible outcomes (depending on what the intention is). Changing the intention changes the entire moral question.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020,
In what way does pointing out that morality can be malleable and subject to factors like intent support the notion that morality is objective?
doireallyneed1 1 year ago
@doireallyneed1
Morality is a combination of actions and intentions. To say that an action is objectively wrong fails to account for intentions. That is not my argument. My argument is that a given pair of action + intention can be objectively right or wrong.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020,
So action can't be separated from intent ... I'll have to think some more about that. Meanwhile, can we perhaps examine a "narrower" example? You labelled " 'killing solely for entertainment'...intuitively (and objectively) wrong". For the sake of argument (if you are still interested) I will contend that the intuitive element is evolutionary in origin and the objective element is non-existent. How do you conclude that it is objective?
doireallyneed1 1 year ago
@doireallyneed1
"I will contend that the intuitive element is evolutionary in origin and the objective element is non-existent"
I also contend the intuitive element is evolutionary. However, our intuitions inform us that the action + intention you mentioned is objectively wrong. To accept the existence of moral intuitions and reject the conclusion is to deny the self-evident. In order to do that, you must have a good reason or counterargument.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020,
I don't understand how you get to objectivity through intuition. Also, how do you establish that objectivity is 'self-evident'?
doireallyneed1 1 year ago
@doireallyneed1
Our intuition tells us that certain actions + intentions are wrong. If certain actions actually are wrong, then objective morality exists.
I said objective morality is self-evident because many moral values are intuitively obvious.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020,
If you were ready to accept the plausibility of intuition being a product of evolution then why do you insist on linking the intuition of morality to an outside source? I still don't understand how you arrive at objectivity through intuition - can you explain a little further how you mean "self evident"?
doireallyneed1 1 year ago
@doireallyneed1
If I am hardwired to recognize that "killing non-consenting humans for entertainment is wrong" is a true statement of fact, then there must be some explanation as to why it is true.
As soon as a human is able to grasp the concepts in the question, the above statement becomes obviously true.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Epydemic2020,
I think the point where I disconnect from this line of reasoning is where you jump from intuition to objectivity.
"If I am hardwired to recognize that "killing non-consenting humans for entertainment is wrong" is a true statement of fact, then there must be some explanation as to why it is true."
If the explanation is that "hardwired" or "intuition" or "instinct" has an evolutionary origin then where does the outside source come in?
doireallyneed1 1 year ago
I think morality is like a scale.
On one side is the (sometimes selfish) desires of the individual and on the other is the "greater good" of the group. The nature of the group is not important. Religions, Political parties, Cultural groups, Families, Badminton clubs, bar crowds or prisons - all can have this dynamic applied.
cont-d - - -
doireallyneed1 1 year ago
I propose a valid counter-argument.
Justin Bieber exists therefore objective morality cannot exist.
I subjectively feel it is innately immoral to make people listen to his music.
I shall call this...the "bieber" argument.
Abgef 1 year ago
What we're talking about here is very cut and dry Utilitarianism vs. Deontology. Now i'm not going to break down arguments of each, if you want to hear about that, take a philosophy 101 course. What I DO want to say here though, is that an objective moral imperative doesn't necessarily need to come from a higher power. Kant's categorical imperative is a very cut and dry rule that states that you can only do something if it can be universally applied and remain uncontradictory. No God required.
NikEmmer 1 year ago
@NikEmmer
Phil 101 doesn't reference anything about morality. I didn't come across ethics until the 300 level classes.
The irony in appealing to Kant is that he made his own version of the moral argument for God's existence. I will have a video on Kantian ethics out eventually.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 It's true that providing a moral framework consistent with the existence of God was part of Kant's intention, but it was also his attempt to turn away from the wishy-washy subjectivity of utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and other frameworks of morality. I think the categorical imperative holds value even without the assumption of a divine being existing.
NikEmmer 1 year ago
@NikEmmer
So why "ought" we accept the categorical imperative in your view?
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
But the reality is "divine command" is fiction. Divine command was used as an excuse for the Israelite tribe to go around and butcher, torture and loot neighboring tribes. The "command" comes from the primitive barbarians who wrote the scripts in the old bible.
Thew real question is: do we dogmatically follow the morality of iron age, superstitious barbarians or from reasoned, thoughtful inquiry into the human condition after 2000 years of advancement. I think the answer is easy.
sweetsweatyfeet 1 year ago
@sweetsweatyfeet
I think you miss the crux of my argument here. The only time "divine command" is mentioned is in relation to the name of the theory.
Thoughtful inquiry is an essential part of behaving in an objectively moral way. My argument is that objective morality exists.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 I agree with you about desires and that morality is objective to the extent it serves an objective purpose or predefined standard. Secular humanism holds that human life, coexistence and happiness is the standard for morality. Whereas theism set's "god" as the standard which (in my opinion) is not objective.
If belief in "god" is held by faith then it follows that a morality believed to originate from god must also be accepted by faith. Faith and objectivity are incompatible.
sweetsweatyfeet 1 year ago
@sweetsweatyfeet
I have a video on faith, I think it would be relevant. We seem to be operating under two different and contradictory meanings of the word.
I agree that the values espoused by secular humanism are objectively valuable. However, secular humanism cannot explain why that goal is "moral" as opposed to any other goal. If objective morality exists ( which I believe I can show it can) then secular humanism is unable to account for it.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Morality is an "ought"--and oughts don't exist as absolutes floating in space. Morality, value and purpose are all CONTEXTUAL-- which for us means they exists to serve our needs as a human species. Thats' why it's better to say "human morality" or a "morality appropriate for human life".
It's not the task of morality to define it's purpose or standard; that is the role of philosophy. Morality only deals with the nuts and bolts toward acheiving this standard.
sweetsweatyfeet 1 year ago
"Ted Bundy desired to rape , that does not mean he belived it was right"
If Bundy belived what he did what was right this is would be bad argument.
"That is why your desires are not the source of our morality"
Our desires are based of our instinct this goes sexuality,morality etc.
Let us pick an example of an amoral situation
Jim is a student he can either choose to have sex or prepare for his exam,he choses the second option .That doesn't mean desires don't dictate sexuality
SuicidalKiller4life 1 year ago
@SuicidalKiller4life
"If Bundy belived what he did what was right this is would be bad argument."
I have a vid about bundy expressing his moral philosophy as well as clips from interviews if you are interested.
"That doesn't mean desires don't dictate sexuality"
That is not my argument. I am not talking about what people "do" desire, I am talking about how people "should" behave. The two are completely different.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
"That is not my argument. I am not talking about what people "do" desire, I am talking about how people "should" behave. The two are completely different."
I am not usre what you mean by that but did you not say in the video.
"The mere fact that we can desire things that are immoral tells us that desires cannot be the source of our morality"
SuicidalKiller4life 1 year ago
@SuicidalKiller4life
"The mere fact that we can desire things that are immoral tells us that desires cannot be the source of our morality"
What we "do" desire does not dictate to us how we "should" actually act.
Desires = something we do (which may are may no be consistent with what we should do)
Morality = a set of behaviors we should do. (which may or may not be consistent with what we actually do)
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
It has been proven that humans desires are affected by instincts wich can be attributed to evolution ,therefore things that favorise our survival.
If you see a big threatening creature you desire to run or kill it to protect yourself.
Morals existing in our instincst can be attributed to our instincts there is no reason to belive God is the one behind it.Actually a naturalistic explanation is better .Why do we not feel instinctive hate for gays even know God disaproves of it?
SuicidalKiller4life 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
My point was that morality is based on our instincts as our desires are basically from our instincts
SuicidalKiller4life 1 year ago
hes youtubing from prison? or a psych hospital? whats with the jail walls in the background?
MyFishyWishy 1 year ago
Awe...you soccer ball bed spred cover is so cute, little boy.
GuruBoards 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FujiwaraNoGo "There are bases for moral objectivity under naturalism. Perhaps we haven't found them yet" If they haven't been found, how can you claim that they exist? If a person says "There is a God, proof just hasn't been found yet" would that be an acceptable assertion?
kmsoileau 1 year ago
Epidemic: Idk if you remember me, I posted a video response (under the name debunker333 I think, it was a different username) but I do remember you saying that you had something like "logical deductions to prove god" or something like that, I don't remember exaclty. If you remember what I'm talking about, would you mind PMing them to me, or tagging me in a video or something, I'd be very interested t hear what they are.
dhcrazy333 1 year ago
@dhcrazy333
I remember you. We had a convo on aim as well. I did say that there exist several deductive arguments for the existence of God. They are very often misunderstood so I am making my way through each one as thoroughly as I can before moving on. So far I am working on the moral argument. I also hope to address others like the teleological and cosmological argument and even present a few original arguments I am working on.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
I believe that morality comes from society. Whatever society deems is socially acceptable, and morally acceptable, is just that, deemed moral. For example:
The ancient Aztecs found it moral and just to sacrifice hundreds and thousands of humans a day. We see this as immoral, because our society has deemed it immoral.
Also, not so much as 150 years ago it was moral and common to marry sisters or cousins, which now, is usually deemed unacceptable.
Morality changes with society's demands
dhcrazy333 1 year ago
@dhcrazy333
That sounds like an excellent topic for a video response. Stay tuned, I'm planning on giving this comment a vid reply.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
While you do that, let me add my voice to dhcrazy333's. A topical example of this truth is the 'Skins' controversy. Now, that programme has a US and UK version. In both nations underage sex is both illegal and considered morally wrong. However, in the UK a 17yr old having sex won't raise an eyebrow, in the US it is enough to outrage the press just by it's depiction, entirely because our perceptions of 'underage' are different. Romeo & Juliet was about 14 yr olds, darned Shakepedo
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 and to go on with that, I am also proposing, that while it's based on society at the time, it may not offer solutions in every situation. I don't think there is one moral law that can answer every scenario, so the way I view morality is based on society for the general morality, and it may vary from the societal standard in given situations (such as, do u kill 1 innocent person to save 5). Morality is too complex to have an end all theory, but yes, i think most comes from society
dhcrazy333 1 year ago
@dhcrazy333
well I agree sort of with morality comes from society, I think morality first comes from an inductive process but may change for many reasons.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
We can show not only that a naturalistic basis for morality hasn't been found, but that it cannot be found. I will be explaining that more in my next vid coming out tomorrow.
In the vid, I will show that "the edicts of an arbitrary God" is not what I use as the base for objective morality.
"whose existence is yet to be proven". The purpose of the moral argument is to prove the existence of God. Syllogism included in my latest and upcoming video.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
Moral beliefs cannot come from education and analysis. Eduction and analysis can only help me better understand reality and therefore better understand when I am violating moral principles. God is necessary to serve as the foundation of morality. No foundation for objective morality can exist under naturalism.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
Of course what you desire tells you what is right or you would never do what is right. I think you are conflating desire with something else, action requires desire. You may desire something a great deal but if you do not act upon it, you desire something more that prevents your action..it is that simple.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
I disagree Ep. Morality is a projection of SPECIFIC aspects of human desire. - specifically involving a collision between self-interest and empathy.
Murdering an innocent man is not moral (as we mean) because of the conflict with empathy. It also fails to be moral from the well-being vantage point given killing some people for their organs for others considered at the time more important would overall REDUCE happiness in society. So it's GOOD that we have laws against such behavior.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
It's only concern for a greater degree of human well-being in society that presents such behavior - as stealing a relatively less important individuals organs for anothers - problematic. That protection of a greater well-being is both a question of concern for our own organs (self-interest) and also for the individuals that would be effected other than us - those we know or otherwise (empathy.)
These human desires are at the heart of what we mean by "morality."
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
he made specifically clear in his response that Desires ≠ source of morality.
He also argued "there can certainly be cases when maximizing selfish interests can also be a bad thing to do."
That seems inconsistent with your position.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
I agree that certain desire are right, but given your framework when two desire conflict (like say rational selfish-interest and empathy) how do you determine what the "right" one is? How do you determine how you "should" behave?
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
I saw the response and I think this is a confusion. I agree with his view. Morality is not defined by what we desire. It is a question of maximizing human well-being. But human nature - especially the desires regarding self-interest and empathy - are core to what is behind our moral concerns in the first place. How we define what is moral ultimately also involves reason and goes beyond blind application of but rather informed pursuit of these desires.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
Do you not need to desire "maximizing human well-being" to use that as a moral tenet, or can you not desire it and it still be moral?
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@Hex
Great question. I think the answer is no. We needn't desire to "maximize human well-being" directly - or from a standpoint of "desire" alone - to embrace it as the ultimately goal of morality. Morality goes beyond these two more desire-related aspects of human nature - self interest & empathy - to also involve the rational aspect of our nature. This helps explain how we go from self-interest & empathy applied more tribalisitcally to our embracing cooperation between groups for example.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Hex
(cont'd)
So in essence starting with our basic natural concern for self-interest, capacity for empathy, and ability to use our brains, we can rationally ascend from placing value in our own interest at the expense of others around us, to placing value on pursuing our interests to the benefit of others within our immediate group but at the expense of other groups, to seeing our interest and that of our groups interest more in cooperating with other groups also. AKA: maximizing well-being.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Hex
(cont'd 2)
Or... "AKA: maximizing well-being in general."
A blind unthoughtful pursuit of gratifying our immediate concerns for self-interest and (by empathy) the interests of some others (if for example only those we know) won't get us to an embrace of a concept of morality that defines the ultimate good as maximizing well-being in general. Rational thought / Reason has to become involved to get us there. So again, to your question, in a sense "desiring" it & embracing it r distinct.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
I am not sure I follow, are you saying we can embrace something without having a reason to(aka desiring it)?
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@Hexdoll
(B1)
No not without a reason. But precisely that it takes a reason. Naked desire alone without reason - or blindly pursued desire (if you will) - will not get us all the way there. It takes reason to get to an understanding of morality that is defined in a way distinct from whatever you feel in your gut is the thing to do in the moment (which may or may not give any credence to the well-being of others or even if others not necessarily those beyond your personal friends/family.)
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Hex
(B2)
Consider how morality is basically a matter of social expectations. Have you ever heard of "honor amongst thieves"? The point being people can have expectations of fairness within a certain set of relationships and then turn around and pay no mind to them in relation to some individuals outside that set. But rationality applied to these desires that are always there (self-interest & empathy) that gets us embracing well-being in general as the goal (aka:"Enlightened Self-Interest")
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Hex
(B3)
For many us to some degree w/in a lifetime & also for many societies across history, its taken an experiential process, expanding our sense of empathy towards others "outside" our group & changing how we see that our own interests and tied up in the interests of others (not just because we come to care and thereby feel good or bad based on the situation of others-but cooperation between groups is better than conflict & violence or protecting anothers freedom can be protecting yours.)
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
(B1) Reason is just a methodology not a destination. You have to desire something before you can reason your way to or away from it. you cannot reason peace is better than war without the desire for the benefits of peace.
(B2) Morality starts with an indoctrination from your environment more so from your caregivers.
(B3) Yes people change their values over their lifetime and this is for many reason that this happens and sadly not by the means of reason most of the time
Hexdoll 1 year ago
Just to run with this bizarre focus of your video, your own DESIRE to please or supplicate to your god is what is motivating your own morals.
So let us see....."maximizing human happiness" vs "do what your god wants you to do". I think I know which moral system I'd rather have.
SerenityNoww 1 year ago
@SerenityNoww
Speaking of misrepresentations...
Neither maximizing happiness or just pleasing God is an adequate moral foundation.
I behave morally because I recognize there is an objective standard of morality. I realize that an objective standard of morality can exist if and only if God exists. Therefore God must exist.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
"I behave morally because I recognize there is an objective standard of morality" - Why? So far an unfounded premise.
"I realize that an objective standard of morality can exist if and only if God exists." - Faulty premise number two. Why must this be so?
SerenityNoww 1 year ago
@SerenityNoww
"So far an unfounded premise"
Long story short, I am an ethical intuitionist. We have innate knowledge of a realm of moral truths. This gives us good reason to think that objective morality exists and no reason to think it fails. The best counterargument is "the argument from disagreement" which I have addressed at length.
"why must this be so"
Because OM is possible if theism is true and not possible if it is false as I explained in the vid (see the is-ought gap for more info)
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
But regardless, if your standard of morality is based on what you believe your god has decided is moral, then you are basing your morality on the subjective moral standards of that god (unless of course you believe that your god is a slave to these standards & not the author)
Assuming you believe that your god is the author, & assuming that you are following these standards correctly, then you are infact following a subjective standard of morality.
SerenityNoww 1 year ago
@SerenityNoww
"if your standard of morality is based on what you believe your god has decided is moral"
I don't believe morality is based on whatever God decides. Since I don't hold that view, I don't feel the need to defend that position. I don't argue that morality is something external to God nor internal to Him, I argue that His very nature IS the standard.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
The thing that annoys me most about apologists like this guy is the fact that they cherry-pick and strawman every argument. Notice how quickly he zoned in on 'personal desires' , something that was never part of ShwaNerds argument, and completely ignored the bit about improving happiness of the community while REDUCING SUFFERING... that's a big point that's completely lost on every apologist i've ever had this discussion with. It's dishonest rhetoric and nothing more.
UmbrellaAl 1 year ago
@UmbrellaAl
Thats awfully presumptuous of you.
For the record, his comments on personal desires directly followed the question "what is your source of morality". Also, with standard utilitarianism the foundation of morality is a position known as "sentimentalism". There was no intentional cherry-picking or strawmanning going on here.
Stay tuned for the next video and all will be explained.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 It doesn't need to be intentional to be dishonest. In my experience with Christian Apologists i've realized that they can hear very well... they just have a really hard time listening.
UmbrellaAl 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 He said he had a personal desire for all of humanity to thrive or something similiar to that affect. He wasn't speaking as if he was basing his morality on human desires. You took what he said and applied it in a different context that had nothing to do with what he meant.
Fishqueen1972 1 year ago
I think the desires thing was just a poor choice of words on his side. Just like when Batman said "let her go" in the last movie.
Otherwise I think this looks like the start of a good, honest discussion between you two.
coladict 1 year ago
@coladict
Thanks. I think we will be able to clear up our disagreements, at least on that point.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
Yeah it seems immoral but if it actually maximized happiness then it wouldn't be.
Your example is just a variation of the trolley problem.
If you haven't looked into the trolley problem just do a quick google search or else respond to this comment and I'll explain it.
ubergossen 1 year ago
I think you misrepresent what Shwanerd is actually saying. This is a debate trick & not very honest.
Fishqueen1972 1 year ago
@Fishqueen1972
If I misrepresented him, then it wasn't on purpose.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 If U don't believe in divine command theory/voluntarism (whatever) then you are in the same boat as an atheist to figure out what is the best moral code to live by so I am not understanding what your motivation is. You seem to disagree with some Christians on things. Why aren't you responding or critiquing them? It is ok to believe in Christianity whatever your reasons. The thing I find strange about theists is that they are bothered by the fact that some people don't.
Fishqueen1972 1 year ago
@Fishqueen1972
I do believe in divine command theory, just not the particular flavor of that belief called "voluntarism".
I do respond to and critique Christian positions I disagree with. I even have a few vid series planned on evolution.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 That is the opposite of what you said in one of your videos. If you believe in divine command theory then you are dependent upon God's will.
Fishqueen1972 1 year ago
Ok so a couple things:
First, have you started to create a full syllogism for your position on this whole morality thing yet? If so I would really want to see it. If not.I would really want to see one? haha I don't want you to feel like I'm telling you to do that I just think it would be cool to read and helpful.
2nd what would you do in regards to your organ harvesting question?
Lastly, I just got a really nice webcam so I'm gona jump into this whole thing soon, any advice?
Houston810 1 year ago
@Houston810
I used to include the syllogism in all of my videos. My position is:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.
Therefore God exists.
I would not harvest the organs of the homeless dude.
I use a script to keep my vids short and concise. You may want some program to help edit out mistakes (sony vegas trial, windows movie maker, etc) and have tough skin; people on the internet are kinda rough sometimes.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "I would not harvest the organs of the homeless dude." I hope not. That is a basic kindergarten Golden Rule application. I can't believe you are making it so complicated. You misrepresent the idea of humanism.
Fishqueen1972 1 year ago
@Fishqueen1972
Shwa is a specific type of humanist. He expressed a utilitarian philosophy. Standard Utilitarians would say that you should harvest the organs of the homeless dude.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 I listened to his entire video & I did not get a utilitarian philosophy out of his argument at all. I think U R trying to read between the lines, but there is actually nothing there to read. He did not even get very specific about his philosophy, he just asserted some very vague notions. He is a secular humanist which is partially about the idea of human rights. Where do you get idea that it suggests we should harvest organs of homeless people? Strawman?
Fishqueen1972 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Techinically, you have not proven 1 in your list. It isn't even a logically coherent premise. I agree with number 2 to a certain extent, but it is a still contingent upon several factors working together.
Fishqueen1972 1 year ago
Jesus said it was right to kill homosexuals! ...You done any of that lately?
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00
Link me to that verse, maybe they messed up the red lettering in my Bible?
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Leviticus - 20:13''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.''
...now I could be wrong, but Im pretty sure that all Christians believe Jesus was righteous ...so any words that came out of his mouth would also have to be righteous and morally perfect? ...morally unchanging also?
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00
Jesus doesn't make his appearance until the New Testament. You are quoting the third book of the Old Testament.
Jesus brought in the New Covenant, you are quoting the Old Covenant.
(The Old Covenant is composed of several social, moral, and ceremonial laws. Morality didn't change, but social and ceremonial norms did.)
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 So the God of the Old Testament is not a member of the Trinity? ...and the God of the New Testament (The one Jesus prays to on several occasions, including on the cross) ..is not the same God that is in the Old Testament? ...And you are also stating that Jesus is not a member of the Trinity and so is not ''one'' with the God(s) of the Old or New Testament? I quoted the exact words from the Deities (The Fathers, Jesus', The Holy Spirits) mouth. I did not quote a member of the...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
general Earthly population who is making laws regarding that populations social outlook. You say we get our morality from God. This is Gods (Jesus') unchanging ''good'' word. If God imposes a social law which specifically contradicts a ''good'' moral value/instruction (i.e. Thou shalt not kill) ...how can you label his sense of morality ''good'' or ''objective''? He is imposing laws which force people to be immoral by his own standards!!
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00
"thou shalt not murder" is not some sort of categorical imperative. Instances of justified killing takes place. Jesus Himself sets up a moral hierarchy where he says the two greatest commands are to love God and love your neighbor.
At no point does a statement "thou shalt not murder" imply that self defense, capital punishment, or other forms of killing are necessarily immoral.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@ndjm00
I didn't realize you were trying to play semantic games based on the trinity.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 ''"thou shalt not murder" is not some sort of categorical imperative.''
First of all, its ''thou shalt not kill''. To ''murder'' is to kill with the specific intent to do so. God states that ''killing'' is immoral ...which covers all forms of killing. By what objective criteria are you stating that this is not an imperative? Is there an appendix to the Bible ...or foot notes stating you can subjectively interpret a divine command to suit ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
what you believe this commandment should mean?
''Instances of justified killing takes place. Jesus Himself sets up a moral hierarchy where he says the two greatest commands are to love God and love your neighbor.''
...I completely understand that killing is sometimes justified. But I also recognise that the word of your all knowing, all loving, perfectly moral creator never ever expresses any justification for the numerous atrocities he carries out on the people of this planet ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
within the Bible. He never even justifies the torture he gives himself (Jesus), when it is well within his power to simply ''forgive''. He tries to justify it ...but it is not a good justification given that he is all powerful and well able to be in the presence of sin / evil in any case (Job: makes wagers with the devil concerning Jobs loyalty). The God of your Bible never presents any justification for making it law to kill two consenting homosexuals ...therefore negating the ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
need to adhere to the ''Thou shalt not kill' commandment. You might turn around and say (referring to Job) that God doesn't need to justify his actions, laws or commandments to us mere mortals. But that's plain nonsense. If he felt the need to justify Jesus' sacrifice (badly I might add. he never provided an adequate justification considering he is all powerful!) then there is no reason he should not have to justify the law of killing two consenting males. You say that the moral commands...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
are hierarchical in nature. Well which is higher up or more important??? The commandment not to kill ...or the law to kill homosexuals??? Are you willing to state that these people had more of a moral obligation to execute homosexuals than to obey the ''thou shalt not kill'' commandment??? Even if it was ''thou shalt not murder'' and not ''kill'' ...which of these to commands/laws takes precedent over the other? I take it that you agree that ''thou shalt not kill'' is more important? In ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
which case, why did God create a blanket law on executing all homosexuals even though if there was a hierarchical nature to his laws / commandments (I personally don't believe there was ...you are just using desperate apologetics) this law could never be put into force??? Or do you believe it is more important to kill execute consenting homosexuals than uphold a divine moral command not to kill???
''At no point does a statement "thou shalt not murder" imply that ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
self defense, capital punishment, or other forms of killing are necessarily immoral.''
...Again ...I do believe it is ''kill'', not ,''murder''. And how can a blanket law on executing homosexuals be in aid of self defense or be justified as a ''capital punishment'' offense considering we are talking about an all loving, unchanging God? Are you now stating that it is not ''necessarily immoral'' to walk into a gay couples bedroom, drag them outside and execute them? And I don't want to ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
hear the ''it was a different time'' argument. Gods moral views, commands and laws should be unchanging considering he is all knowing, all loving and the source of all ''objective'' morality and values.
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00
I didn't say morality changed. I have made a video on this if you want a better explanation. It is called "absolute objective morality".
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 ''I didn't say morality changed.''
...I never said you did...
''I have made a video on this if you want a better explanation. It is called "absolute objective morality".''
Cough, Cough *Cop out!!* Cough. I have brought up many arguments here and now that I would like you to address! Considering everything I have just said? ...Is it / was it, more of a moral imperative to execute consenting homosexuals than it is / was ''not to kill''? This is not a difficult question!
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00
The two moral imperatives you are bringing up don't even conflict. Don't murder and don't have capital punishment are not mutually exclusive. Also keep in mind that under a theocracy the Jews were basically in a contract to God and held to a higher standard (not a diff morality, but stronger punishments given the direct communication with God).
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 ''The two moral imperatives you are bringing up don't even conflict.''
You believe that ''Thou shalt not kill'' (not just murder - it wouldn't matter in any case) ...does not conflict with: ''If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely BE PUT TO DEATH; their blood shall be upon them.'' What kind of cognitive dissonance have you got going on that allows you to see no conflict here??? You say ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
killing under certain circumstances is acceptable and I agree. ...but how is killing two consenting homosexuals a form of self defense??? Why should it be punished with execution i.e.Capital Punishment? What is the justification here?? Please tell me? If you believe that this type of execution is ''morally justified'' (LOL!!) and therefore trumps the moral ''thou shalt not kill / murder'' command ...then provide the justification? ...and then tell me why that justification does not apply...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
today but it did then? This considering that God is morally perfect, all loving, all knowing and unchanging???
The rest of your argument is a red herring ...non sequitur. It does not address the obvious contradiction in these supposed ''objective'' morality statements from God. Are you telling me that todays western society is not as morally righteous as the Jews of older days? ...and in order to be as ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
morally righteous as them ...we should be executing consenting homosexuals? This would take us more closer to moral perfection? ...as this type of needless execution of homosexuals is practicing ''good'' morality at a higher standard?
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00
You are missing the crux of my argument. Morality doesn't change, but people are held to different standards. Priests go by a priestly code, which has rules and punishments not suitable for the non-priestly population. Members of a theocracy hold themselves to a higher standards with rules and punishments not suitable for non-jews.
You are essentially arguing that it would be "closer to moral perfection" to hold everyone to the priestly code. It just doesn't follow.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 I have to say it man ... behind the serious exterior, you are just as crazy as any Fundy is when your beliefs on morality are examined.
''Members of a theocracy hold themselves to a HIGHER STANDARDS with rules and punishments not suitable for non-jews.''
...so basically what you are saying is that to execute a consenting homosexual couple is to practice a higher standard of morality? ...and you are completely comfortable ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
with this idea? It does not phase you? Are you crazy??? It does not bother you that your own perfectly moral God has morality laws which say it is not only acceptable, but it is REQUIRED, to execute consenting homosexuals? ...and that these laws are of a higher standard? Regardless of the group of people these laws are aimed at (God believes such executions are moral for these people), there is absolutely no justification for this as far as I can see, I have ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
repeatedly asked you for one and you have repeatedly refused to give me one. How can you not see the problem here??? God told the Jews not to kill. He also told the Jews to execute homosexuals. Even if we were to accept a hierarchical nature to these commands / laws - (I don't by the way. You have no justification other than a reference to Jesus stating that loving God is most important. As far as I can see ...all other laws and commands are on an equal footing. Prove otherwise ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
without special pleading!!) - ...surely the ''thou shalt not kill command'' is higher up?
''You are essentially arguing that it would be "closer to moral perfection" to hold everyone to the priestly code. It just doesn't follow.''
...It most certainly does follow. You are the one stating that to execute homosexuals ...is to practice morality at a higher standard. Surely practicing morality at a higher standard is ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
...getting you closer to moral perfection / goodness. Like ...how does this reasoning not follow? Your apologetics are terrible here man. You have no justifications ...just paper thin excuses!! A God that says it is lawful for ANYONE in any time or age, or ANY SPECIFIC GROUP to EXECUTE someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is a morally bankrupt, unloving God who is practicing arbitrary and subjective moral double standards.
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00
Higher standards does not mean "higher standards of morality". I said numerous times that we are all on the same standard of morality.
Here is an example in our legal system, adults are punished more severely than adolescents. This is not to say that adults have a higher standard of morality, just more severe punishments for moral infractions.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 ''Here is an example in our legal system, adults are punished more severely than adolescents.''
...that is because adults are literally held to a higher standard of morality, and rationality within society. Kids are deemed less culpable for their actions because they don't understand the moral implications (or otherwise) of their actions. In any case ...your argument is ridiculous as even though a child might not be punished for a misdeed as an adult would; ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
...a child murdering another person would be deemed by society to be just as immoral as an adult doing it. We understand that the child has not developed enough to realise this though ...hence, we don't punish them as harshly. But priests and lay people are all of maturity. An adult lay person of those times would be able to determine the morality of a law as easily as an adult priest. You don't need priestly qualifications to comprehend a moral dictum. I want you to tell ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
me what is morally ''good'' about anyone executing a homosexual at any time in this Earths history? What is ''objectively good'' about anyone within any society carrying out such a command from God? ...especially considering God has told the exact same people that killing is immoral! Or did ''thou shalt not kill'' not apply to the priests? If you believe so ...give me line and verse please? I would also like line and verse which states that the law condoning the execution ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
of homosexuals was specifically, and only, given to priests? ...and then tell me how these homosexual executions were ''objectively morally good'' back in those times? ...and then tell me why they are not ''objectively morally good'' anymore ...even though God is unchanging and morally absolute...?
ndjm00 1 year ago
As always, Epy, I have huge problems with your line of thinking.
In your argument against using maximal happiness as the standard of right & wrong, you implied that our moral intuition trumps any other moral standard we might try to use (ie. if our assessment conflicts with our moral intuitions, the standard we're applying must not be correct). In effect, that means we should trust that whatever we feel is right or wrong is objectively right/wrong.
army103 1 year ago
@army103
Here was my argument: "We have no reason to think maximizing happiness is always equivalent to morally good, and we have reason to think the two are not always equivalent."
Shwanerds foundation of morality isn't a valid reason to support his conclusion that happiness = morality. In other words, even if his claim was somehow true, he wouldn't know it because his method is flawed. Intuition contradicts his position. We have nothing for it and at least 1 thing against it.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
The when biblical morality contradicts my moral intuitions, I should go with my intuitions, correct?
army103 1 year ago
So what created gods nature? If god is omnipotent, then surely he did himself and his nature IS his choice.
kelarael 1 year ago
@kelarael
Are you seriously suggesting that God created his own nature?
That is like saying God caused his own existence. In order to cause something you would have to first exist, so existence is something that is impossible for you to cause (without logical contradiction).
Christians argue that God is eternal (meaning his nature aka essential properties are as uncaused as he is and exist out of necessity).
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 So by what means can you assert that god is inherently good or that his nature is?
If god tells you to kill people (and there are various cases in which he does) and your conscience balks (such as killing a child for being disobedient for example, or the genocides in israel) Is God not acting against his own nature? If you FEEL bad, then it is going against your inherent instinct not to harm people. That thing YOU claim is a basis for claiming objective morality exists.
kelarael 1 year ago
@kelarael Also, if god is uncaused and eternal, why must he have a nature at all? Why would he not be a mish mash of all encompassing randomness? Why must god be anything at all? What is your reasoning for this assertion? You certainly can't have any evidence.
Why would god not be the perfect balance of good and evil, encompassing and committing acts of both?
kelarael 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
Morality is based on a choice between competing alternatives. If god didn't choose his nature and had no say on the beliefs he has, on what basis can he consider them good or bad? On what basis can you judge god as good? You can't buddy. No matter how many apologetic backflips you twist yourself into, the problem remains. God is simply god and what he commands is simply what he commands. Your definition of what constitutes goodness is a viciously circular tautology.
bdwilson1000 1 year ago 2
@bdwilson1000
God has beliefs? really? There are some things that God can not do - some things that are contrary to His very nature and existance. For instance, God can not learn - since He already knows it all. So in what sense does God have beliefs according to you? I guess God could "believe" in something, but that's just irrelevant because He would know whether it were true or not. God is the essence of morality and goodness, His nature determines those things, He wouldn't choose them.
AhoSenpai 1 year ago
@AhoSenpai
In what sense does god have beliefs? Read your bible. He believed the world was good (until he changed his mind and flooded it. He believed gays having sex with each other should be killed for it. He believed slavery was not something to be condemned universally. He believes witches, wizards, necromancers, unicorns, talking snakes, and talking donkeys have actually existed at one point or another. He believes many things based on what he has said directly in "the word".
bdwilson1000 1 year ago
@bdwilson1000 No,no no.. I think you are trying to avoid the implication of your statement that God has beliefs - If there is God, He doesn't need to believe, since He KNOWS absolutely how things really are. He knows how things ought to be - we have an idea of that when God says after He had created everything, that it was very good. But this didn't last, since human-race fell in to sin... So it's not that God now believes that everything is not good, He knows it - as do we.
AhoSenpai 1 year ago
@bdwilson1000
Innate knowledge of morality = knowledge of objective morality.
Foundation of objective morality = God's nature.
"On what basis can you judge god as good"
On the basis of our innate knowledge.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
Comment removed
bdwilson1000 1 year ago
Comment removed
bdwilson1000 1 year ago
You haven't answered anything. On what basis can god consider his nature "good"? Simply asserting that whatever his nature happens to be qualifies as good (despite the fact that he had no choice in the matter)..and considering that his actions or commandments aren't based on the consequences they have on sentient beings, God still has no rational basis for declaring his own actions as objectively "good". They simply are what they are..and you are still defending a circular position.
bdwilson1000 1 year ago
"Test everything. Hold on to the good."
Have you ever thrown out anything in the bible that you tested and found wanting?
Why is Yahweh's nature good?
wimsweden 1 year ago 2
@wimsweden I would ask that last question differently: *how* is Yahweh's nature good?
cjc813 1 year ago
@cjc813
Yes, a definite improvement. :-)
wimsweden 1 year ago
@cjc813
It is not subject to subjective desires. It exists out of necessity and is not arbitrary. It is not a byproduct of a mind. Therefore it would be objective.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@wimsweden
I have revised my position on several biblical issues.
"Why is Yahweh's nature good?"
That question doesn't actually make sense. If God's nature IS the standard of good.. then your question boils down to "why is The Good good?"
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 1 of 2
"I have revised my position on several biblical issues."
Yes, but have you ever thrown out anything wholesale because every revised position fails?
Well, the International Prototype Kilogram is the standard for the kg, but that doesn't mean that "Why is the International Prototype Kilogram the standard for kg" is a nonsensical question. I could present you with a history of how the IPK came about. But okay, let me pose it from a different angle:
wimsweden 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 2 of 2
How did it come about that Yahweh's nature is the standard of good? If Yahweh's moral nature had been something else, would you know? And how would that impact morality ? How come Yahweh's nature is what it is? Happenstance?
wimsweden 1 year ago
@wimsweden
" How come Yahweh's nature is what it is? Happenstance?"
No, necessity. God's nature is not arbitrary because it exists out of necessity. Uncaused things cannot "happen to be" a certain way. Happenstance is the one answer that can't possibly apply.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Uncaused??? ...proof for that assertion = 0
ndjm00 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
"God's nature is not arbitrary because it exists out of necessity." Which necessity?
wimsweden 1 year ago
Not that I am going to defend Desirism here, but there is a following for Desirism, which basically argues that Desires are what determine morality. Just saying, there is definitely more there to be argued.
MaximumAxiom 1 year ago
@MaximumAxiom
I don't think it matters how many people follow desirism. Desirism could just as easily apply to my desire to eat ice cream and avoid broccoli. No "right" or "wrong" can be derived from that. It doesn't solve the major problems like the naturalistic fallacy or is-ought gap and it runs counter to our intuitions. There seems to be no reason to believe it and multiple reasons to doubt it.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
I don't think you should be so quick to judge Desirism; though I did neglect to mention that it is a consequentialist theory of ethics, and thus should be able to cross the is-ought gap easily. The founder Alonzo Fyfe (his blog is called "Atheist Ethicist") has made many blog posts discussing the merits of Desirism.
I do agree though it doesn't matter how many people subscribe to Desirism.
I was just making a point that desires do hold a fundamental roll in some ethical theories.
MaximumAxiom 1 year ago
@MaximumAxiom
Consequentialist views do not bridge the is ought gap easily. In fact,they do not bridge the is ought gap at all. Those are exactly the views which were originally critiqued by Hume's is-ought gap.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Epydemic2020
I haven't the willpower to argue with you on how Desirism attempts to cross the is-ought gap, but here are two articles from the creator of the theory on the subject:
atheistethicist(DOT)blogspot.com/2007/03/oughts-and-desires(DOT)html
alonzofyfe(DOT)com/article_humeisought(DOT)shtml
I find that most fine-tuned objective theories haven't much problem crossing the gap, and that it is subjective ethical theories like DCT that are often unable to demonstrate an ought from is.
MaximumAxiom 1 year ago
Strange to see that you are still trying to support moral arguments when God always fails at moral arguments. I was actually looking forward to a video trying to refute my video about you. It never happened, but that's likely because there is no way to support any objective morality without pretending there is a god in the first place.
Godlessons 1 year ago 3
@Godlessons
If the moral argument did fail, it would not be because of the arguments you made. Your objections only indicated that you didn't understand what I was arguing. You accused me of making an appeal to emotions and an appeal to majority, and said I was presupposing God's existence (all of which are clearly not the case as I have defended ad nauseum). I addressed your video within the comments section.
continued
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Godlessons
continued
You argued things like "(Nazis) they believed they were doing a service to the country, and it could be argued they actually were... people simply have different moral values and you can't show any objective source for the right moral values. Because of that your belief in their objectivity are unsupportable."
That is a version of the argument from ignorance. Not only did I address that argument, but used that exact analogy in my video doing so.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
before i listen to this, i just want to say, herpa derp.
schr4nz 1 year ago
@AnglicanApologist72
Thanks
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
CEO's ?!?!?! Homeless people on wellfare?! That example was total class warfare bait. Harvest the CEO's bank accounts and give them to the poor homeless guy on welfare =P
WayOfTheBastard 1 year ago
OHEMGEE!!!
WayOfTheBastard 1 year ago
...distrust my intuition?
migkillertwo 1 year ago