Welcome to Gaia! ::

vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,800 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


My daughter got some words wrong on her last spelling test. Was this morally wrong of her? Should I have punished her for the "lack of morals" she showed by not being perfect?


Depends on the nature of moral truth. If moral truth was that she should be punished if she did not get a perfect score, then yes. If moral truth was that she should not be punished, then no. If moral truth did not make any judgment on the case, it would be "undefined" whether she should be punished.


Now you're just arguing yourself in circles. You claim a higher morality to the universe, further you argue that I believe in it despite not being able to comprehend that I believe in it. But when I ask you to apply your asserion that it is a moral wrong to be in error to a real life incident you suddenly waffle about it depends on the moral truth of the situation. It can not be both way. Either it is a moral wrong to make and error or it is not.

I believe that would be checkmate for me. Altho I'm reasonably sure you will attempt to counter this by claiming I only erroneously believe to believe this argument.


No, you have just not realised what it means. Namely, that I am referring an inherent part of any moral proposition: that is it a truth that is undeniable. There is no case that the three situations I suggested are all possible. What that was referring to was how, depending on the nature of the higher morality(which has not been stated) of the universe, it would dictate that a given response of what must happen(i.e. if X were moral truth, then X is what should happen).

It does depend on the moral truth of the situation, but not in the way you think. What should happen depends on the nature of moral truth situation in that what should be done is set out in the moral truth that is(i.e. there are not multiple possible truths, but rather there is one truth and the situation that there is such a truth sets out the obligation of what action must be taken)


Do you honestly not see the way you are hopping back and forth over the fence, or are you just hoping I won't?


No, it just appears that way because you are failing to realise the distinction between analysis of what is the case provided that a given something is true(the point is, that in any situation where something is conceived about morality, there is a truth that results, even if you say morality is "undefined," as that means it is true morality is "undefined." ) and actual claim about the nature of moral truth(for example, that it is moral truth that she should not be punished, so she must not be punished, regardless of if anyone happened to feel otherwise).


So, there's a higher morality, but how we apply it vaies? Sorry, but that makes no sense. And I'm still waiting for any little bit of evidence of this "higher morality" you claim exsist. Just any little thing.
I Refute Berkeley Thus
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus


I did not mention an "axiom." Also, axioms cannot be fallacies.


No, you did. That a given moral position cannot be a fallacy is assumed in its definition.


Fallacies are erroneous logical inferences; axioms are definitional.

Again, I see no reason to accept your claim that moral statements are inherently taken to be infallible. You're going to need to start arguing for this instead of restating it.


I've already shown you why this is: a moral position is, by it nature, a claim that a certain way of acting is proper. That a certain way of acting cannot be faulted. That a certain way of acting is correct by definition.

When I say "The moral thing to do is eat carrots" I dismiss that any other way of acting is appropriate. I state that it is infallible that carrots should be eaten.

Of course, this may be wrong, in a same way as if I took the axiom that lava would not injure me and applied it to being the case in the real world, but this does not change that I have proposed it as infallible.


I'm not seeing any reasoning. Asserting that something is true doesn't mean you think the opposite is impossible or your position is infallible. I honestly have no idea what caused you to believe this, but it's generally not the way anyone (save mystics and dogmatists) actually behave.


No it does, for when one asserts(i.e. actually claims it IS true as opposed to merely suggesting something and than examine what would be if it were the case) that X is true, they claim that it cannot be accurately argued that it is not the case(i.e. their proposition is true rather than false). Anything else is logically incoherent because if what you propose as true(that it is the case) is not actually the case, if you think it can be accurately denied, then your claim that it was true(that the proposition is the case) has not been made. There is no coherent truth present. I suspect that there are three mistakes you are making.

The first is not to mark the difference between what someone feels and a coherent claim of truth. It is most certainly possible to feel that something is both true and false, but because these are in contradiction, it can never be reflective of a governing moral truth. Nor a claim of governing moral truth. Such a thing would be an absurdity, as it would mean that the justification give for why people were obligated to perform certain actions is both true and false. This is inadequate to justify a moral position because it leaves a situation where it is anything action is both appropriate and inappropriate. There is certainly can be feeling that something is both true and false, but it doesn't amount to a truth about anything(other than it is true that someone feels something is both true and false).

Secondly, you are possibly taking an instance where someone makes a moral proposition out of its present, applying what they learn and how they change throughout their life to that present and treating it as they thought those ideas that change were possible in the present of making that moral proposition. This is not the case. When they made the moral proposition, they did indeed think it was infallible and propose it as such. When they changed, they simply changed their mind on this.

Thirdly, you are possibly failing to adequately explain instances where people define that something should be the case in one circumstance but not another, and are consequently falling to realise that they are still making a claim that their position is infallible. If I am to claim that it is true that one should eat carrots if you are wearing a blue hat but not if you are wearing a green hat, I have not defined a position where it there is more possible than what I claim as true. I taking that it is infallible, if you are wearing a blue hat, you should eat carrots. I am taking it as infallible that if you are wearing a green hat, you should not eat carrots.

Morality is by definition dogmatic. It is a stance that one way is preferable to any other(you can, of course, get tricky one this and define that there are multiple moral ways of acting, but in such a case all you have done is shift the dogma to include more options rather than actually removing it).
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


Now you're just arguing yourself in circles. You claim a higher morality to the universe, further you argue that I believe in it despite not being able to comprehend that I believe in it. But when I ask you to apply your asserion that it is a moral wrong to be in error to a real life incident you suddenly waffle about it depends on the moral truth of the situation. It can not be both way. Either it is a moral wrong to make and error or it is not.

I believe that would be checkmate for me. Altho I'm reasonably sure you will attempt to counter this by claiming I only erroneously believe to believe this argument.


No, you have just not realised what it means. Namely, that I am referring an inherent part of any moral proposition: that is it a truth that is undeniable. There is no case that the three situations I suggested are all possible. What that was referring to was how, depending on the nature of the higher morality(which has not been stated) of the universe, it would dictate that a given response of what must happen(i.e. if X were moral truth, then X is what should happen).

It does depend on the moral truth of the situation, but not in the way you think. What should happen depends on the nature of moral truth situation in that what should be done is set out in the moral truth that is(i.e. there are not multiple possible truths, but rather there is one truth and the situation that there is such a truth sets out the obligation of what action must be taken)


Do you honestly not see the way you are hopping back and forth over the fence, or are you just hoping I won't?


No, it just appears that way because you are failing to realise the distinction between analysis of what is the case provided that a given something is true(the point is, that in any situation where something is conceived about morality, there is a truth that results, even if you say morality is "undefined," as that means it is true morality is "undefined." ) and actual claim about the nature of moral truth(for example, that it is moral truth that she should not be punished, so she must not be punished, regardless of if anyone happened to feel otherwise).


So, there's a higher morality, but how we apply it vaies? Sorry, but that makes no sense. And I'm still waiting for any little bit of evidence of this "higher morality" you claim exsist. Just any little thing.


No, if there is higher morality(if there is any obligation on action at all, for example, that one should not treat natural disasters and disease as punishment ), of if there is no higher morality(in the case of "undefined" ), then there is a truth about morality that applies(for example, if one is obligated not to treat natural disasters and disease as punishment, then it must be true that it is so).

There is never any evidence for it because moral truth can only ever be apparent to us as axiomatic. A moral truth is a conceptual notion. This cannot be observed empirically. This is why the "no evidence" argument does not work to suggest its non-existence. Being conceptual, there would be no evidence to perceive if it were true, so an absence of evidence doesn't suggest that it is false.
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,800 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


Now you're just arguing yourself in circles. You claim a higher morality to the universe, further you argue that I believe in it despite not being able to comprehend that I believe in it. But when I ask you to apply your asserion that it is a moral wrong to be in error to a real life incident you suddenly waffle about it depends on the moral truth of the situation. It can not be both way. Either it is a moral wrong to make and error or it is not.

I believe that would be checkmate for me. Altho I'm reasonably sure you will attempt to counter this by claiming I only erroneously believe to believe this argument.


No, you have just not realised what it means. Namely, that I am referring an inherent part of any moral proposition: that is it a truth that is undeniable. There is no case that the three situations I suggested are all possible. What that was referring to was how, depending on the nature of the higher morality(which has not been stated) of the universe, it would dictate that a given response of what must happen(i.e. if X were moral truth, then X is what should happen).

It does depend on the moral truth of the situation, but not in the way you think. What should happen depends on the nature of moral truth situation in that what should be done is set out in the moral truth that is(i.e. there are not multiple possible truths, but rather there is one truth and the situation that there is such a truth sets out the obligation of what action must be taken)


Do you honestly not see the way you are hopping back and forth over the fence, or are you just hoping I won't?


No, it just appears that way because you are failing to realise the distinction between analysis of what is the case provided that a given something is true(the point is, that in any situation where something is conceived about morality, there is a truth that results, even if you say morality is "undefined," as that means it is true morality is "undefined." ) and actual claim about the nature of moral truth(for example, that it is moral truth that she should not be punished, so she must not be punished, regardless of if anyone happened to feel otherwise).


So, there's a higher morality, but how we apply it vaies? Sorry, but that makes no sense. And I'm still waiting for any little bit of evidence of this "higher morality" you claim exsist. Just any little thing.


No, if there is higher morality(if there is any obligation on action at all, for example, that one should not treat natural disasters and disease as punishment ), of if there is no higher morality(in the case of "undefined" ), then there is a truth about morality that applies(for example, if one is obligated not to treat natural disasters and disease as punishment, then it must be true that it is so).

There is never any evidence for it because moral truth can only ever be apparent to us as axiomatic. A moral truth is a conceptual notion. This cannot be observed empirically. This is why the "no evidence" argument does not work to suggest its non-existence. Being conceptual, there would be no evidence to perceive if it were true, so an absence of evidence doesn't suggest that it is false.


Fine, so you believe it may be out there. I do not. There is no evidence either way so stalemate.

I'm ignoring the first part b/c it just more of you twisting my words to your liking and therefore not worth addressing.
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


Do you honestly not see the way you are hopping back and forth over the fence, or are you just hoping I won't?


No, it just appears that way because you are failing to realise the distinction between analysis of what is the case provided that a given something is true(the point is, that in any situation where something is conceived about morality, there is a truth that results, even if you say morality is "undefined," as that means it is true morality is "undefined." ) and actual claim about the nature of moral truth(for example, that it is moral truth that she should not be punished, so she must not be punished, regardless of if anyone happened to feel otherwise).


So, there's a higher morality, but how we apply it vaies? Sorry, but that makes no sense. And I'm still waiting for any little bit of evidence of this "higher morality" you claim exsist. Just any little thing.


No, if there is higher morality(if there is any obligation on action at all, for example, that one should not treat natural disasters and disease as punishment ), of if there is no higher morality(in the case of "undefined" ), then there is a truth about morality that applies(for example, if one is obligated not to treat natural disasters and disease as punishment, then it must be true that it is so).

There is never any evidence for it because moral truth can only ever be apparent to us as axiomatic. A moral truth is a conceptual notion. This cannot be observed empirically. This is why the "no evidence" argument does not work to suggest its non-existence. Being conceptual, there would be no evidence to perceive if it were true, so an absence of evidence doesn't suggest that it is false.


Fine, so you believe it may be out there. I do not. There is no evidence either way so stalemate.

I'm ignoring the first part b/c it just more of you twisting my words to your liking and therefore not worth addressing.

No, the first part was that was explaining my words and how they relate to your position. No twisting involved.

I'll try this way another why.

I wan you to tell my why it matters that we should not treat natural disasters and disease as punishment? What is your justification to be concerned about this?
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,800 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


Do you honestly not see the way you are hopping back and forth over the fence, or are you just hoping I won't?


No, it just appears that way because you are failing to realise the distinction between analysis of what is the case provided that a given something is true(the point is, that in any situation where something is conceived about morality, there is a truth that results, even if you say morality is "undefined," as that means it is true morality is "undefined." ) and actual claim about the nature of moral truth(for example, that it is moral truth that she should not be punished, so she must not be punished, regardless of if anyone happened to feel otherwise).


So, there's a higher morality, but how we apply it vaies? Sorry, but that makes no sense. And I'm still waiting for any little bit of evidence of this "higher morality" you claim exsist. Just any little thing.


No, if there is higher morality(if there is any obligation on action at all, for example, that one should not treat natural disasters and disease as punishment ), of if there is no higher morality(in the case of "undefined" ), then there is a truth about morality that applies(for example, if one is obligated not to treat natural disasters and disease as punishment, then it must be true that it is so).

There is never any evidence for it because moral truth can only ever be apparent to us as axiomatic. A moral truth is a conceptual notion. This cannot be observed empirically. This is why the "no evidence" argument does not work to suggest its non-existence. Being conceptual, there would be no evidence to perceive if it were true, so an absence of evidence doesn't suggest that it is false.


Fine, so you believe it may be out there. I do not. There is no evidence either way so stalemate.

I'm ignoring the first part b/c it just more of you twisting my words to your liking and therefore not worth addressing.

No, the first part was that was explaining my words and how they relate to your position. No twisting involved.

I'll try this way another why.

I wan you to tell my why it matters that we should not treat natural disasters and disease as punishment? What is your justification to be concerned about this?


For Pete's sake, I was just using that as an example of what can come of instilling the workings of the universe with some sort of moral code. I never said there was anything wrong with it. That's what you keep insisting, and insisting that said and somehow believe. People that do it are just wrong in their thinking. Hurrincanes do not hit b/c someone was worshpping the wrong god. People do not get AIDS b/c God hates homosexuals. Babies aren't born w/ birth defects to punish the parents for something. These things just happen. It's not the universe keeping tabs on us. Why you keep insisting on equating an error or mistake with a moral issue is beyond me. It's even more beyond me why you keep trying to convince me that I have said that which I did not and believe what I do not.
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


So, there's a higher morality, but how we apply it vaies? Sorry, but that makes no sense. And I'm still waiting for any little bit of evidence of this "higher morality" you claim exsist. Just any little thing.


No, if there is higher morality(if there is any obligation on action at all, for example, that one should not treat natural disasters and disease as punishment ), of if there is no higher morality(in the case of "undefined" ), then there is a truth about morality that applies(for example, if one is obligated not to treat natural disasters and disease as punishment, then it must be true that it is so).

There is never any evidence for it because moral truth can only ever be apparent to us as axiomatic. A moral truth is a conceptual notion. This cannot be observed empirically. This is why the "no evidence" argument does not work to suggest its non-existence. Being conceptual, there would be no evidence to perceive if it were true, so an absence of evidence doesn't suggest that it is false.


Fine, so you believe it may be out there. I do not. There is no evidence either way so stalemate.

I'm ignoring the first part b/c it just more of you twisting my words to your liking and therefore not worth addressing.

No, the first part was that was explaining my words and how they relate to your position. No twisting involved.

I'll try this way another why.

I wan you to tell my why it matters that we should not treat natural disasters and disease as punishment? What is your justification to be concerned about this?


For Pete's sake, I was just using that as an example of what can come of instilling the workings of the universe with some sort of moral code. I never said there was anything wrong with it. That's what you keep insisting, and insisting that said and somehow believe. People that do it are just wrong in their thinking. Hurrincanes do not hit b/c someone was worshpping the wrong god. People do not get AIDS b/c God hates homosexuals. Babies aren't born w/ birth defects to punish the parents for something. These things just happen. It's not the universe keeping tabs on us. Why you keep insisting on equating an error or mistake with a moral issue is beyond me. It's even more beyond me why you keep trying to convince me that I have said that which I did not and believe what I do not.


The point is that you install a moral code to the universe if you are to find fault with what can come of instilling a moral code to the universe.

That may be the case, but that doesn't absolve the problem. We could, for example, ignore those facts and treat it as though all those things were punishments. You are, with that position, holding that we should care that an error is being made. If it were not so, there is no reason to be concerned that a mistake has been made.
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,800 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


So, there's a higher morality, but how we apply it vaies? Sorry, but that makes no sense. And I'm still waiting for any little bit of evidence of this "higher morality" you claim exsist. Just any little thing.


No, if there is higher morality(if there is any obligation on action at all, for example, that one should not treat natural disasters and disease as punishment ), of if there is no higher morality(in the case of "undefined" ), then there is a truth about morality that applies(for example, if one is obligated not to treat natural disasters and disease as punishment, then it must be true that it is so).

There is never any evidence for it because moral truth can only ever be apparent to us as axiomatic. A moral truth is a conceptual notion. This cannot be observed empirically. This is why the "no evidence" argument does not work to suggest its non-existence. Being conceptual, there would be no evidence to perceive if it were true, so an absence of evidence doesn't suggest that it is false.


Fine, so you believe it may be out there. I do not. There is no evidence either way so stalemate.

I'm ignoring the first part b/c it just more of you twisting my words to your liking and therefore not worth addressing.

No, the first part was that was explaining my words and how they relate to your position. No twisting involved.

I'll try this way another why.

I wan you to tell my why it matters that we should not treat natural disasters and disease as punishment? What is your justification to be concerned about this?


For Pete's sake, I was just using that as an example of what can come of instilling the workings of the universe with some sort of moral code. I never said there was anything wrong with it. That's what you keep insisting, and insisting that said and somehow believe. People that do it are just wrong in their thinking. Hurrincanes do not hit b/c someone was worshpping the wrong god. People do not get AIDS b/c God hates homosexuals. Babies aren't born w/ birth defects to punish the parents for something. These things just happen. It's not the universe keeping tabs on us. Why you keep insisting on equating an error or mistake with a moral issue is beyond me. It's even more beyond me why you keep trying to convince me that I have said that which I did not and believe what I do not.


The point is that you install a moral code to the universe if you are to find fault with what can come of instilling a moral code to the universe.

That may be the case, but that doesn't absolve the problem. We could, for example, ignore those facts and treat it as though all those things were punishments. You are, with that position, holding that we should care that an error is being made. If it were not so, there is no reason to be concerned that a mistake has been made.


When did I say I was concerned about it? people believe a lot of dumb stuf. Why would I care? Except that possably they are letting themselves in for a bunch of undeserved guilt for imagined sins and all the heartache that goes along with it.

But again, that is not some sort of retribution from the universe. It is simply people applying a manmade moral code to themselves, or using it judge others, and then using a perefctly natural event as fallicious proof of their assertion. This is all humankind doing this. We make the rules. We break the rules. Then we punish ourselves and others for doing so. Morality is a human concept.

If there was any sort of moral code to the universe than cause (moral breach) would always be followed by effect (punishment). That doesn't happen. If, for example AIDS was a punishent for homosexuality than every homosexual would get it, and no one that wasn't ever would. If the universe is some sort of judge of our actions it's a damned unfair and biased one.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games