|
Author
|
Topic: Formal and Informal Logic
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
Message 44 of 191 (329252)
07-06-2006 8:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by iano
07-06-2006 6:30 AM
|
|
It seems to me that if morality is subjective then there is no such thing as cruel. If not then there is no such thing as good either - in which case God cannot be defined as good.
It seems to me that your assumption would be incorrect. Cruel is causing me unneeded pain. (How is that for subjective there). What is 'cruel' and hwat is not is subjective. You will find disagreements between people on what is cruel and what is not. Some tings will be agreed upon, but there will be 'grey areas' that are disagreed upon. That means it is subjective.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by iano, posted 07-06-2006 6:30 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 45 of 191 (329253)
07-06-2006 8:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by iano
07-06-2006 7:05 AM
|
|
Say we took God a absolutely good and gave his moral judgement a score of 100%. It is possible that all our admittedly subjective moral judgments refer to this 100% but only score 70 or 20 or 13. The argument from cruelty would fail - not because cruelty doesn't actually objectively exist (we have enought objectivity in our subjectivity to suppose it does) - but because we are not in a full enough position to say a particular action is cruel
That was answered by The Riddle of Epicurius in about 300 B.C.E.
quote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by iano, posted 07-06-2006 7:05 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 46 by iano, posted 07-06-2006 8:52 AM | | ramoss has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 47 of 191 (329261)
07-06-2006 9:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by iano
07-06-2006 8:52 AM
|
|
No. It is not a non-sequitor at all. However, I will note your inability to answer it. I see that it is an entirely good point, because it shows the illogic of the concept of having an all powerful, all knowing, all good god existing, when evil exists in the world. Edited by ramoss, : clarified sentance.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by iano, posted 07-06-2006 8:52 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 49 by iano, posted 07-06-2006 9:39 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
Re: cool 
Except of course, you are predermined to accept the instructions known that have been predetermined justified as logic.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-06-2006 11:38 AM | | PurpleYouko has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 70 of 191 (329564)
07-07-2006 9:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by iano
07-06-2006 11:47 AM
|
|
Re: cool
On the contrary, part of the pre-determined belief is the belief in free will.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by iano, posted 07-06-2006 11:47 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
Re: Logic of morals
My point was that one CAN'T reason from a moral standpoint. Therefore, all moral rules are groundless.
Except, of course, from the viewpoint of enlightened self interest.
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
Re: Logic of morals
That , I believe, is because the premises you are basing your conclusions are is the conclusion are you coming to. If you have a bad premise in your logic, your conclusion will be bad, no tmatter what kind of logic (formal or informal) you use.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by robinrohan, posted 07-11-2006 6:19 AM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 119 of 191 (330839)
07-11-2006 1:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 110 by jar
07-11-2006 10:29 AM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
That is because the desire for morals is 'hard wired'.. but the morals themselves are shapped by society. Just like the ability to learn language as a child is hard coded into the child, but what language is learned is taught.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by jar, posted 07-11-2006 10:29 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 121 by jar, posted 07-11-2006 2:00 PM | | ramoss has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 122 of 191 (330844)
07-11-2006 2:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 121 by jar
07-11-2006 2:00 PM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
Maybe not.. but if you don't learn them, you tend not to be able to survive as an individual in the society.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 121 by jar, posted 07-11-2006 2:00 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 135 of 191 (331163)
07-12-2006 1:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
07-12-2006 1:44 PM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
The argument that morality comes from social standards or cumulative experience doesn't cut it. The best you can say about it is that it may act as a restraint in some cases. But murders are committed all the time, and in fact it's scary how many are never solved, so that it is possible to get away with it. There IS no absolute reason not to murder if there is no absolute moral standard, which is what you seem to be getting at. And there is no absolute moral standard if there is no God, and even if there is there might not be an absolute moral standard depending on the kind of God we have. But there is, oddly enough, an inbuilt moral restraint that most of us feel to one degree or another, wouldn't you agree? What do you think, could evolution have brought that about or is that evidence that there is a God who made us?
No, I do not agree with you at all. The inbuilt moral restraint is not evidence of a "God that made us" at all, because having a moral restraint is a surivival characteristic in social animals, and can be selected for by evolution. Your proclaimation that experiance is 'not a reason for moral restraint' does not cut it, mainly because there is 'no absolute moral value because there is no god' is irrelavent. The fact there is a consequence for murder (i.e. the punishment of society, jail) is reason enough.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by Faith, posted 07-12-2006 1:44 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 137 by Faith, posted 07-12-2006 2:17 PM | | ramoss has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 138 of 191 (331172)
07-12-2006 2:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
07-12-2006 2:17 PM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
No, I do not. You seem to be ignoring the fact that if there was 'absolute morality' then no one would murder to begin with.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 137 by Faith, posted 07-12-2006 2:17 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2