Simply declaring that, "but that's not morality" is silly. We have the word morality and it applies to such situations regardless of whether or not gods exist. We just have to understand what humans are actually talking about when they use the word. Much like "free will", which is also the source of much confusion. It clearly is a useful term when assigning responsibility, but many people insist that it must refer to impossible phenomena to serve the role that it does. That's simply false.
That situation produces things like the golden rule by logical necessity. When agents are not interacting voluntarily, such as when the Nazis killed the Jews, they are simply not employing moral reasoning. This view also makes it clear what "ought to be" means. It's what a group of voluntarily interacting people collectively agree are the best ways to regulate their interaction. You simply can't have an "ought" without the "is" of the opinions of the people involved.
It's quite fascinating to hear you appeal to Hume's is/ought distinction, given the title of this video. It seems quite obvious to me that if what "is" is irrelevant to what "ought to be", then the existence of God, and any opinion he might have, is irrelevant to morality.
However, I have to say that I find such definitions of morality childish and useless. The role of morality is to regulate interactions between agents who are interacting voluntarily.
@Gnomefro "This view also makes it clear what "ought to be" means. It's what a group of voluntarily interacting people collectively agree are the best ways to regulate their interaction." What should people agree on? How do you decide? Should people agree? What is your basis for saying that they should all agree? How did you figure that out?
@Gnomefro hello, My friend it is of no use talking to Ben he is deeply mentily ill. I asked him by e-mail if it was ever right to 1- rape a child ( or anyone) or order someone to rape a child 2- to kill a child 3- to torture a child ( or anyone) 4- to make your child a slave or sell a child into slavery.
Ben said it was good and moral to rape a child or anyone, moral to kill and torture and make a slave of a child. He said there are times and good reasons to rape , kill, torture and enslave children. He also told me rape was about love, it is about " making someone love you by force".
Human beings are the only creatures on earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one.
eyetalllies 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
You have really good arguments. Consider me a subscriber.
slRing127 2 months ago in playlist More videos from ApologeticsBenJoiner
Simply declaring that, "but that's not morality" is silly. We have the word morality and it applies to such situations regardless of whether or not gods exist. We just have to understand what humans are actually talking about when they use the word. Much like "free will", which is also the source of much confusion. It clearly is a useful term when assigning responsibility, but many people insist that it must refer to impossible phenomena to serve the role that it does. That's simply false.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
That situation produces things like the golden rule by logical necessity. When agents are not interacting voluntarily, such as when the Nazis killed the Jews, they are simply not employing moral reasoning. This view also makes it clear what "ought to be" means. It's what a group of voluntarily interacting people collectively agree are the best ways to regulate their interaction. You simply can't have an "ought" without the "is" of the opinions of the people involved.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
It's quite fascinating to hear you appeal to Hume's is/ought distinction, given the title of this video. It seems quite obvious to me that if what "is" is irrelevant to what "ought to be", then the existence of God, and any opinion he might have, is irrelevant to morality.
However, I have to say that I find such definitions of morality childish and useless. The role of morality is to regulate interactions between agents who are interacting voluntarily.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro "This view also makes it clear what "ought to be" means. It's what a group of voluntarily interacting people collectively agree are the best ways to regulate their interaction." What should people agree on? How do you decide? Should people agree? What is your basis for saying that they should all agree? How did you figure that out?
ApologeticsBenJoiner 2 months ago
@Gnomefro hello, My friend it is of no use talking to Ben he is deeply mentily ill. I asked him by e-mail if it was ever right to 1- rape a child ( or anyone) or order someone to rape a child 2- to kill a child 3- to torture a child ( or anyone) 4- to make your child a slave or sell a child into slavery.
justbekindtooall 2 months ago
@Gnomefro cong
Ben said it was good and moral to rape a child or anyone, moral to kill and torture and make a slave of a child. He said there are times and good reasons to rape , kill, torture and enslave children. He also told me rape was about love, it is about " making someone love you by force".
This kid is a deeply ill man.
justbekindtooall 2 months ago