What is "morally wrong" without God?

[stealthmongoose]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

stealthmongoose

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

If it's possible to argue against something, it can't be true?

If one is to be correct in arguing against it.

This is why morality is of an axiomatic nature. One can certainly argue against a proposed moral position, but if that proposed moral position is actually true, as is taken with the proposition of any moral truth, then the argument against it is nonsensical. Just as if you were to respond to an argument and reject the axioms that the author takes.

Sorry, I just don't see any reason to believe this.

Sigh... the reason is truth itself.

The reason is that if you claim a moral truth, you are making the claim that it is true there is a particular moral obligation, and this obligation cannot be said to be false(if someone claims it is false, they are wrong). Without this, the moral truth cannot be, for there would be no reason for someone to be obligated to action without it.

It can't be that "It is true that you must do this(the moral truth) yet also true that an accurate objection(that the moral truth does not apply and is false) is possible. "The moral truth, by its nature, cannot be faulted. One may, of course, object to a given moral truth(just as one may object to an axiom given in an argument), but such an objection can hold no substance if the claimed moral truth is the moral truth.

I'm going to try to interject and summarize your point:

"Truths are undeniable on a real basis. Verbally anyone can deny anything whether or not they do so legitimately. Proposed Moral truths are no exception. If Moral Truths exist, they are undeniable on a real basis."

For example: Murder is wrong. Someone can deny murder is wrong, but if they do not do so realistically then murder is still wrong. If someone cannot prove that murder is wrong through very real means then murder being wrong is not a moral truth.

This desk in front of me is true. I cannot work past it without bumping into it. It effects me as i'm typing on it.

Who is it that brought up the idea of moral truths? Do any exist? Has anyone provided an example of a moral truth for analysis yet?

I assert that moral truths do not exist in any real or practical way, though morality as a concept can be worked into society using ethical basis.

Torturing innocent people for no reason is bad.

Boy, that was easy. You clearly didn't look very hard.

And by comparison you must be blind. What you described was an act of ethical application. You wouldn't want to be tortured, so you don't torture others. That's ethics! You learned a new word today!

Now, you can argue torturing is good or bad until Kingdom Never Coming, but to say that it is a moral truth that cannot be avoided by a shift in perspective is ridiculous.

Let's say your family is kidnapped. The only person who has the information of where they've been taken is not talking. They will die unless you acquire the information of their whereabouts from this person.

I'm not saying I don't believe it's wrong to torture him (In fact i despise the application of torture in any situation) to acquire the truth of their whereabouts, i'm not even arguing that it's a feasable idea in most cases.

But if you do not, your family will die hypothetically speaking.

If i were in the situation I just posed to you, i would find it very difficult finding the wrong in extracting the information from this source in any way i could.

Addendum: Mind you, torture can range from poking you in the eye to making you eat glass. We're talking about agressive physical interrogation here, so when i say any means necessary i mean only to the extent where he will divulge the information.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

stealthmongoose

And by comparison you must be blind. What you described was an act of ethical application. You wouldn't want to be tortured, so you don't torture others. That's ethics! You learned a new word today!

I don't refrain from torturing others because I don't want to be tortured. I do so because torturing people is bad.

Quote:

Let's say your family is kidnapped. The only person who has the information of where they've been taken is not talking. They will die unless you acquire the information of their whereabouts from this person.

I'm not saying I don't believe it's wrong to torture him (In fact i despise the application of torture in any situation) to acquire the truth of their whereabouts, i'm not even arguing that it's a feasable idea in most cases.

But if you do not, your family will die hypothetically speaking.

Hence the caveat "for no reason."

[stealthmongoose]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

stealthmongoose

And by comparison you must be blind. What you described was an act of ethical application. You wouldn't want to be tortured, so you don't torture others. That's ethics! You learned a new word today!

I don't refrain from torturing others because I don't want to be tortured. I do so because torturing people is bad.

Quote:

Let's say your family is kidnapped. The only person who has the information of where they've been taken is not talking. They will die unless you acquire the information of their whereabouts from this person.

I'm not saying I don't believe it's wrong to torture him (In fact i despise the application of torture in any situation) to acquire the truth of their whereabouts, i'm not even arguing that it's a feasable idea in most cases.

But if you do not, your family will die hypothetically speaking.

Hence the caveat "for no reason."

1. Where do you derive your sense of it being bad? Is it not the pain, suffering, and degradation that a person would endure that's enough to make it bad for you? Why would you have a sense of it's wrongness without a source? That's like saying food is worth eating because it's food. You neither take the time to measure the value of the thing for it's content nor equate it with your own experience in any way? I doubt that very much, and i'm glad that even though people speak a certain way, reality only agrees to a degree.

2. If you cannot answer a simple hypothetical with as few variables as the one i posed to you, how do you ever expect a concept like the moral truths you are proposing to hold up in that very possible situation? People's families have been kidnapped before. Physical interrogation has been deemed a method of finding these people. Can you provide your personal insight on any of these hypotheticals which your moral code should be able to answer?

Please, provide an argument for your point. Otherwise you're using symbolism to define content.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

stealthmongoose

1. Where do you derive your sense of it being bad? Is it not the pain, suffering, and degradation that a person would endure that's enough to make it bad for you?

Yes.

Quote:

2. If you cannot answer a simple hypothetical with as few variables as the one i posed to you, how do you ever expect a concept like the moral truths you are proposing to hold up in that very possible situation?

Your example doesn't apply to the rule I posited.

Notice that you have to introduce counter-incentives to make torture acceptable. Why is that?

[stealthmongoose]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

stealthmongoose

1. Where do you derive your sense of it being bad? Is it not the pain, suffering, and degradation that a person would endure that's enough to make it bad for you?

Yes.

Quote:

2. If you cannot answer a simple hypothetical with as few variables as the one i posed to you, how do you ever expect a concept like the moral truths you are proposing to hold up in that very possible situation?

Your example doesn't apply to the rule I posited.

Notice that you have to introduce counter-incentives to make torture acceptable. Why is that?

Because even good deeds require counter incentive. If non-aggressive interrogation had not failed, there would be no need to go further. If your moral truths were truths at all, physical intervention would not be necessary. The person would have no reason to kidnap the family, etc. But these truths that you propose lack truth, and are only morals in that they can be situational. s**t like THIS...



would not happen if there was truth to morals. Suffering and prevention of suffering to an immense degree is the best way to define morality. This is not self-focused, but rather an effort to recognize suffering as it exists within individuals and reduce it. Calling it "bad" is empty and lacks counter-incentive because it lacks definition.

If you realize that suffering is the source of reason for preventing torture, then how can you appeal to a sense of "I avoid it because it's bad"?

The rule you posted was addressed when you failed to provide a definition of the source of your true morals, or even demonstrated them as true instead of being situational. What is morally correct to you could be immoral to another person or society.

Please, provide me a situation instead. I ask you to place me in a hypothetical that you believe will test your moral truths in your favor. Can you provide a situation where this moral truth you are proposing exists?

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

stealthmongoose

I Refute Berkeley Thus

stealthmongoose

1. Where do you derive your sense of it being bad? Is it not the pain, suffering, and degradation that a person would endure that's enough to make it bad for you?

Yes.

Quote:

2. If you cannot answer a simple hypothetical with as few variables as the one i posed to you, how do you ever expect a concept like the moral truths you are proposing to hold up in that very possible situation?

Your example doesn't apply to the rule I posited.

Notice that you have to introduce counter-incentives to make torture acceptable. Why is that?

Because even good deeds require counter incentive. If non-aggressive interrogation had not failed, there would be no need to go further. If your moral truths were truths at all, physical intervention would not be necessary. The person would have no reason to kidnap the family, etc. But these truths that you propose lack truth, and are only morals in that they can be situational. s**t like THIS...



would not happen if there was truth to morals. Suffering and prevention of suffering to an immense degree is the best way to define morality. This is not self-focused, but rather an effort to recognize suffering as it exists within individuals and reduce it. Calling it "bad" is empty and lacks counter-incentive because it lacks definition.

If you realize that suffering is the source of reason for preventing torture, then how can you appeal to a sense of "I avoid it because it's bad"?

The rule you posted was addressed when you failed to provide a definition of the source of your true morals, or even demonstrated them as true instead of being situational. What is morally correct to you could be immoral to another person or society.

Please, provide me a situation instead. I ask you to place me in a hypothetical that you believe will test your moral truths in your favor. Can you provide a situation where this moral truth you are proposing exists?

Their "foundation" of a thing being good or bad, as I have said, is the same "foundation" of it being green or round. Things are good and bad; just a mundane fact of life.

I do not understand the purpose of your video.

[stealthmongoose]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

stealthmongoose

I Refute Berkeley Thus

stealthmongoose

1. Where do you derive your sense of it being bad? Is it not the pain, suffering, and degradation that a person would endure that's enough to make it bad for you?

Yes.

Quote:

2. If you cannot answer a simple hypothetical with as few variables as the one i posed to you, how do you ever expect a concept like the moral truths you are proposing to hold up in that very possible situation?

Your example doesn't apply to the rule I posited.

Notice that you have to introduce counter-incentives to make torture acceptable. Why is that?

Because even good deeds require counter incentive. If non-aggressive interrogation had not failed, there would be no need to go further. If your moral truths were truths at all, physical intervention would not be necessary. The person would have no reason to kidnap the family, etc. But these truths that you propose lack truth, and are only morals in that they can be situational. s**t like THIS...



would not happen if there was truth to morals. Suffering and prevention of suffering to an immense degree is the best way to define morality. This is not self-focused, but rather an effort to recognize suffering as it exists within individuals and reduce it. Calling it "bad" is empty and lacks counter-incentive because it lacks definition.

If you realize that suffering is the source of reason for preventing torture, then how can you appeal to a sense of "I avoid it because it's bad"?

The rule you posted was addressed when you failed to provide a definition of the source of your true morals, or even demonstrated them as true instead of being situational. What is morally correct to you could be immoral to another person or society.

Please, provide me a situation instead. I ask you to place me in a hypothetical that you believe will test your moral truths in your favor. Can you provide a situation where this moral truth you are proposing exists?

Their "foundation" of a thing being good or bad, as I have said, is the same "foundation" of it being green or round. Things are good and bad; just a mundane fact of life.

I do not understand the purpose of your video.

Wrong, whereas you can DEMONSTRATE that something is green or round by presenting that which is green or round and comparing it something that is not green or round, you cannot demonstrate that something is good or bad by comparing it to something that is not good or bad.

The video above was to show that these officers are doing their jobs, something that will allow them to live for another day and feed their families, while beating up on these kids, which will scar them and bruise their bodies causing their suffering.

But the children are criminals, and obviously they have been committed a bad deed since they are being assaulted by good officers, right?

Can you identify who is being Good and who is being bad? What's your foundation for it?

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

Quote:

Wrong, whereas you can DEMONSTRATE that something is green or round by presenting that which is green or round and comparing it something that is not green or round, you cannot demonstrate that something is good or bad by comparing it to something that is not good or bad.

Why not? What's the difference?

Quote:

Can you identify who is being Good and who is being bad? What's your foundation for it?

I would need more information about the situation. And it's not always obvious.

[stealthmongoose]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

Quote:

Wrong, whereas you can DEMONSTRATE that something is green or round by presenting that which is green or round and comparing it something that is not green or round, you cannot demonstrate that something is good or bad by comparing it to something that is not good or bad.

Why not? What's the difference?

Quote:

Can you identify who is being Good and who is being bad? What's your foundation for it?

I would need more information about the situation. And it's not always obvious.

Your second question answers your first.

Please provide a situation in which true morality can be demonstrated.

[stealthmongoose]

stealthmongoose

I Refute Berkeley Thus

stealthmongoose

I Refute Berkeley Thus

stealthmongoose

1. Where do you derive your sense of it being bad? Is it not the pain, suffering, and degradation that a person would endure that's enough to make it bad for you?

Yes.

Quote:

2. If you cannot answer a simple hypothetical with as few variables as the one i posed to you, how do you ever expect a concept like the moral truths you are proposing to hold up in that very possible situation?

Your example doesn't apply to the rule I posited.

Notice that you have to introduce counter-incentives to make torture acceptable. Why is that?

Because even good deeds require counter incentive. If non-aggressive interrogation had not failed, there would be no need to go further. If your moral truths were truths at all, physical intervention would not be necessary. The person would have no reason to kidnap the family, etc. But these truths that you propose lack truth, and are only morals in that they can be situational. s**t like THIS...



would not happen if there was truth to morals. Suffering and prevention of suffering to an immense degree is the best way to define morality. This is not self-focused, but rather an effort to recognize suffering as it exists within individuals and reduce it. Calling it "bad" is empty and lacks counter-incentive because it lacks definition.

If you realize that suffering is the source of reason for preventing torture, then how can you appeal to a sense of "I avoid it because it's bad"?

The rule you posted was addressed when you failed to provide a definition of the source of your true morals, or even demonstrated them as true instead of being situational. What is morally correct to you could be immoral to another person or society.

Please, provide me a situation instead. I ask you to place me in a hypothetical that you believe will test your moral truths in your favor. Can you provide a situation where this moral truth you are proposing exists?

Their "foundation" of a thing being good or bad, as I have said, is the same "foundation" of it being green or round. Things are good and bad; just a mundane fact of life.

I do not understand the purpose of your video.

Wrong, whereas you can DEMONSTRATE that something is green or round by presenting that which is green or round and comparing it something that is not green or round, you cannot demonstrate that something is good or bad by comparing it to something that is not good or bad.

The video above was to show that these officers are doing their jobs, something that will allow them to live for another day and feed their families, while beating up on these kids, which will scar them and bruise their bodies causing their suffering.

But the children are criminals, and obviously they have been committed a bad deed since they are being assaulted by good officers, right?

Can you identify who is being Good and who is being bad? What's your foundation for it?

QFE. I assert that neither of these groups of people are doing an inherently good or evil deed by participating in the actions presented in the video.

The children may be breaking a law, but that does not make them good or evil. The officers, whom are doing their jobs, are not good or evil for enforcing the law of their area.

We can derive a measurement of suffering and a degree of perspective from this, but even WITH all of the details there would be no fitting axiom such as good and bad to fit the actions of these people, since their interactions are obviously a bit more complex than that.

[vwytche]

The Willow Of Darkness

vwytche

The Willow Of Darkness

vwytche

The Willow Of Darkness

vwytche

Oh it is absolutely true, for a small group for a short period of time. But that doesn't make it right or wrong on the grand scale of the universe. Each culture likes to believe it has the right answers and does what is correct, but logically that can not be true b/c human morals are a varible not a constant.

Instilling nature with some sort of moral code is whatl eads people to believe that natural disasters and diseases are punishments. They're not, they are just the world doing what it does.

Proof? You have stated that it must be that human morals are not constant, but you have not shown it to be. Certainly one can show that what people consider moral changes but this does not show what you claim. It might be that there is a moral constant and that the positions that people have held at some point in history are simply wrong.

And this will be checkmate for me I suspect. What's wrong with treating natural disasters and diseases like punishments? You have, I suspect, just indicated that it is morally wrong to treat natural disasters and diseases like punishments and are consequently using the very kind of truth you deny is there.

All right, assuming for the sake of discussion that there is a higher moral code that governs the universe, can you give me an example of what would be right or wrong? Just to give us an example to work with.

How am I implying that it is morally wrong to be in error about something? You're assuming something I never said.

Let's go with a nice one that is close to everyone survival. It is moral that for you to eat enough to live.

Because you are implying that there is something wrong with treating natural disasters and diseases like punishments. Why is it a problem if this is done?

So, if a mother deprives herself during a famine in order to let her children have more food than that would be morally wrong?

I think it is mistaken to personify a storm or flood. It is incorrect to think that a tornado hit house and missed your neighber's b/c it was after you. But I don't see it as a moral issue. People that do this are just wrong about something. Making a mistake isn't morally wrong. How can one breach their morals accidently?

In that circumstance, yes. It would be different if the moral constant was something else though.

That is a incorrect. You do see it as a moral issue. You are arguing that one should not do something. If there is nothing wrong with making the mistake, if it is not true that not should not occur, why should we even care about it being made(and you have clearly indicated that you care about it being made)?

The issue is that you aren't realising what constitutes your moral positions.

Now your whole argument has boiled down to you trying to tell me what I believe. You don't see the problem with that?

[The Willow Of Darkness]

vwytche

The Willow Of Darkness

vwytche

The Willow Of Darkness

vwytche

All right, assuming for the sake of discussion that there is a higher moral code that governs the universe, can you give me an example of what would be right or wrong? Just to give us an example to work with.

How am I implying that it is morally wrong to be in error about something? You're assuming something I never said.

Let's go with a nice one that is close to everyone survival. It is moral that for you to eat enough to live.

Because you are implying that there is something wrong with treating natural disasters and diseases like punishments. Why is it a problem if this is done?

So, if a mother deprives herself during a famine in order to let her children have more food than that would be morally wrong?

I think it is mistaken to personify a storm or flood. It is incorrect to think that a tornado hit house and missed your neighber's b/c it was after you. But I don't see it as a moral issue. People that do this are just wrong about something. Making a mistake isn't morally wrong. How can one breach their morals accidently?

In that circumstance, yes. It would be different if the moral constant was something else though.

That is a incorrect. You do see it as a moral issue. You are arguing that one should not do something. If there is nothing wrong with making the mistake, if it is not true that not should not occur, why should we even care about it being made(and you have clearly indicated that you care about it being made)?

The issue is that you aren't realising what constitutes your moral positions.

Now your whole argument has boiled down to you trying to tell me what I believe. You don't see the problem with that?

No, I also told you why you are mistaken.

There is no problem with it. Lot of people reason badly with regards to morality and fail to realise the positions they hold.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

stealthmongoose

I Refute Berkeley Thus

Quote:

Wrong, whereas you can DEMONSTRATE that something is green or round by presenting that which is green or round and comparing it something that is not green or round, you cannot demonstrate that something is good or bad by comparing it to something that is not good or bad.

Why not? What's the difference?

Quote:

Can you identify who is being Good and who is being bad? What's your foundation for it?

I would need more information about the situation. And it's not always obvious.

Your second question answers your first.

Please provide a situation in which true morality can be demonstrated.

If I were to find, rape, torture, and kill you right now, that'd be wrong.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

If it's possible to argue against something, it can't be true?

If one is to be correct in arguing against it.

This is why morality is of an axiomatic nature. One can certainly argue against a proposed moral position, but if that proposed moral position is actually true, as is taken with the proposition of any moral truth, then the argument against it is nonsensical. Just as if you were to respond to an argument and reject the axioms that the author takes.

Sorry, I just don't see any reason to believe this.

Sigh... the reason is truth itself.

The reason is that if you claim a moral truth, you are making the claim that it is true there is a particular moral obligation, and this obligation cannot be said to be false(if someone claims it is false, they are wrong). Without this, the moral truth cannot be, for there would be no reason for someone to be obligated to action without it.

It can't be that "It is true that you must do this(the moral truth) yet also true that an accurate objection(that the moral truth does not apply and is false) is possible. "The moral truth, by its nature, cannot be faulted. One may, of course, object to a given moral truth(just as one may object to an axiom given in an argument), but such an objection can hold no substance if the claimed moral truth is the moral truth.

Your position seems to boil down to "any time something is asserted to be true, it must be asserted to be undeniably true." Again, I see no reason to believe that - it seems that very few if any statements in life are actually made that way.

You are wrong. It is true of any claim of truth. Else there would be no claim of truth. For something to be true means that it cannot be denied(i.e. if you were to deny it, you would be wrong). To claim something is true is to claim that something cannot be denied.

[stealthmongoose]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

stealthmongoose

I Refute Berkeley Thus

Quote:

Wrong, whereas you can DEMONSTRATE that something is green or round by presenting that which is green or round and comparing it something that is not green or round, you cannot demonstrate that something is good or bad by comparing it to something that is not good or bad.

Why not? What's the difference?

Quote:

Can you identify who is being Good and who is being bad? What's your foundation for it?

I would need more information about the situation. And it's not always obvious.

Your second question answers your first.

Please provide a situation in which true morality can be demonstrated.

If I were to find, rape, torture, and kill you right now, that'd be wrong.

What would i have done to have you pursue me to rape, torture, and kill me?

Every action, even those that seem unfounded, have catalysts. Assuming i did not murder your family, steal your land, or anything else of that nature, i might agree with you.

I can agree with you on a personal level. I would think it's wrong too. But would it be wrong in every situation possible to every person? If not, then can it be true morality?

I'm not saying that your example has to have a catalyst, but without reason what you're proposing is a random killing absent of cause, whereas my example provided room for real world possibilities.

Or are you saying that it's possible to answer your question on the sheer hypotheticality of it's basis without any reason proposed?