Saturday, November 19, 2011

FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #18

Well, looks like I struck a couple of nerves. Johnny P and Ryan Anderson return...with no sign of improvement. I've decided to try to present their "arguments" in a little different format this time to show exactly who wrote what. My additional comments are in red.
Johnny P said...
Sweet bejesus, this is painful. Look, first of all, I really (and I mean this genuinely and non-offensively) would go away and read a book on morality, or study it to some depth because you are coming out with clanger after clanger that shows you don't really know what you are talking about.

Considering that you have yet to correctly present the Christian worldview and successfully argue against what the Bible says,. seems to me might want to actually read the Bible. 

I'll ignore all the juvenile stuff about html etc.

You mean it's true?! I thought so.

Right, I have only read the first section and that was enough to make me want to cry with exasperation.

So you didn't read the response and you are going to make one of your own. Well, no surprise there. 

OK:

"Again, Ryan, Johnny P and others want the freedom to decry and whine about evil and suffering but have no reason to explain why it's bad. How do you know it's bad? Why would it be wrong for someone to walk up to you, kill you, and take everything you have?"

The burden of proof is on you. YOU are the one claiming that morality is grounded in God. I have made, so far, no such indication as to my personal view on morality.

So, you too chicken to make a stand on morality and what it is? I get it. If you don't make a claim, you think you can just lob criticism without having to expose your own bankrupt ideas. Lots of  fear in you. You can say whatever you want, pretend that you have not made a claim, and hide behind the charge that the burden of proof isn't on you.

Like other posts of yours, you suppose things of me which are irrelevant since you do not understand that in making a positive claim like 'morality can only be grounded in God", you are the one that has to explain the why things are bad in that context. You are doing a classic shifting of the burden of proof.

It's not irrelevant. If you disagree that morality is not grounded in God, then you must be grounded it in something. At least Ryan Anderson is honest to admit that he doesn't ground his morality in nothing more than his own opinion - as frightening as that may be. He' wrong,  but as least he's consistent in his error.

"The video conceded that it was. The video ineptly argued that you can have morality without grounding it in God."

You are making claims of morality, so aside from what the video says, in order to defend those assertions that you made in your comments to the video, YOU have to show how morality is grounded.

The video conceded that Morality is grounded. Given that the post was about the video, what you want should be in another post. Which I am planning to write. I thought you understood how  these things were supposed to go, Johnny P.

You also did not show how moral deontology is not valid. You have not done so. 56.3% of philosophers believe in moral deontology. given that only some 14% of philosophers are theists, that leaves a huge tranche of philosophers, who spend their lives studying this, believe in moral realism.
And you just sweep it away with a crappy assertion. Nice. You make a great philosopher. And before you deny that you are a philosopher, to which I would agree, don't go making wide-ranging and ill-though-out philosophical remarks and conclusions.

Johnny P, where have I asserted that moral realism is not true? I haven't.

"So Johnny P partly disagrees with the video and some philosophers who believe that there are moral outghts."

I believe there can be moral oughts, or oughts about morality, but they are not intrinsic. Semantically, it is incoherent.

Finally, a statement about what Johnny P really thinks he believes.  However, I still see an "ought" as something that was commanded and decreed by a higher authority. If you believe you are obligated for "moral oughts" who said you were?

"You ought to play chess tomorrow at three" makes feck all sense unless you load a prostasis in there. That was my point. It is no different with morality unless you want to equivocate on the word 'ought'.

It makes since if someone commanded you to do it. 

"So you mean under certain circumstances I'd ought to murder you and take all you have? You sure? When? I don't think it would ever be right under any circumstances."

See the trolley problem or the inquiring murderer problem.

Okay, so Johnny P is not going to meaningfully respond. Big surprise. 

"For example, why was it wrong for terrorists to fly airliners into the World Trade Centers in 2001? They didn't think it was wrong, that is why they did it. They were wrong. What makes it correct for you to say that they ought not had done so? I'm still waiting for you or someone to ground their answer in more than your opinion because then you have to explain why your opinion is better than theirs. "

They were wrong because their God does not exist, and for many other reasons that would take much explaining (universally subjective morality based on logic and knowledge etc). If their God exists as they claim, then they have good reason to believe it is morally OK.

You are in a similar position in deriving ideas of morality from a book which you rather arbitrarily assign more charity to than any other book.

I'm not in a similar position as the Terrorist at all, if the Bible is true and the God who revealed it actually exist. You have failed to prove that and even pretend that you are not trying to say that the Bible is wrong and that there is no God.  You argue against a straw god, not the God of the Bible. Nice try in finally trying to answer a question.
 
Johnny P said...
"We are not on God's level. He is the grounding and definition of what is and is not moral. Just because you don't always know why God has acted as He has does not make His action suspect or immoral because you do not know what all the reasons are. You might not like that. You might like to be able to hold God to a standard that you understand given that He is holding us to standard which you try to deny but agree to much of the time anyway. However, that doesn't work very well does it?"

This is just shameful. WE don't habe to understand the hows and whys of God to understand that he is operating under moral consequentialism. He derives the value of his morality (value ethics etc) from the outcome. This is PATENTLY obvious.

I think we are definitely talking past one another. The value of what God does and allows is whatever God says it is and we don't have sufficient logic or understanding to judge them because we don't know what the outcome in its fullness will be.  The problem you seem to have is that this makes God immoral in some way is stupid because you don't know what the outcome will be and you don't know any of the other possible outcomes.  And before you try to side step this by hiding behind the idea that you are not saying God is immoral or non-existent, you have to explain just what point are you trying to make because it would follow that you should just get saved and be a Christian because you have no reason not to.

You have even argued this in talking about the Noah's flood. Is the act of killing all humanity bar 8 and all animals bar a few morally good? On its own, no.

But it was Justice that is why it was right. If not than capital punishment is immoral. Why can't  God be free to have mercy on whom God wants and justly punish those God chooses to punish them, in the way God chooses to punish them. 

But a Christian would argue, given the knowledge of all the consequences, adn given a greater good to come from it, it is morally benign.

No, as A Christian, I would argue that God was right. And God would be just as right if he did the same thing today, but God has chosen to do something different.

THIS IS MORAL CONSEQUENTIALISM. I don't need to know the finer details - in fact, you claim we can't know them (we are not at God's level) - fine. However, THAT THERE ARE BENIGN CONSEQUENCES means that the value of a moral action IS NOT INTRINSIC BUT IS DERIVED FROM THE CONSEQUENCES.

Given that you are blind to the major detail that everything that God does is correct and perfect is why you are don't understand. 

I'm going to leave it here. I'll read the rest of your tripe later. Please do some reading, and please understand the arguments put against you. Look, not even Marino seems to rush to your defence but seems more comfortable commenting on your 'hilarious' videos.

Johnny P, you have so many people agreeing with you?  hmmm...I still hear crickets it's so quiet.  Oh and why don't you make an argument that makes a substantial claim to respond to.

Anyone with a passing interest in moral philosophy (and I have studied it) will know of these issues.

That doesn't seem very apparent that you have studied anything and formed a worldview, given you say you haven't declared it and left me to guess. 

It is not good enough to say THAT something is moral, but one has to say HOW it is moral. That moral value must be judged in some way. This is the job of moral philosophers. This is why utilitarianism and suchlike exist - so that morality can be quantified, grounded and understood.

 So, you are or are not saying that morality is grounded? In what?

If you assign a moral action the value of being 'good' or 'really good', you must also define your system of value.

You first. 

For a good article on the circularity and logical incoherence of appealing to God as the grounds to morality, see here:
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FDoesMoralityDepend.htm.

 What no  hyperlink? Are we back to that?
Ryan Anderson said...
I didn't say that anyone isn't entitled to your personal opinion. I'm saying that without a standard, your opinion is meaningless and no more true than any other conflicting opinion.

Simple yes or no question. In your opinion, can god only and only god act as a standard to ground personal opinions?

 Ryan, that's not simple. That is not even correctly framing the question. God and only God can can act as a standard to ground whether or not a personal opinion is correct - its value and meaning - not determining whether or not you can have a personal opinion which I'm sure in many ways contradicts God.
Ryan Anderson said...
Oh, and sorry about your loss. This must be hard for you to take.

Not hard at all. An experiment was made that seems to agree with the CERNS results that neutrinos were observed traveling faster that the speed of light. More tests will be made and not all the of scientist involved agree that this is conclusive. So I wouldn't get all happy about proving me wrong yet.  I can't blame you for being excited about proving me wrong given that you have failed so often and yet seems to be your only form of entertainment.


What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #17
Enhanced by Zemanta

10 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For pete's sake. I've read twenty odd lines, and you don't stop saying complete crap.

    ""You ought to play chess tomorrow at three" makes feck all sense unless you load a prostasis in there. That was my point. It is no different with morality unless you want to equivocate on the word 'ought'.

    It makes since if someone commanded you to do it."

    That is consequentialist ethics / might is right. You are being good because someone told you to. How the hell is that doing something good out of an intrinsic ought? You have no idea what you are talking about.

    Again and again. And again.

    I deleted my last post by ending here, but I feel generous.

    "See the trolley problem or the inquiring murderer problem.

    Okay, so Johnny P is not going to meaningfully respond. Big surprise. "

    If you don't even know what the trolley problem is, then you really do have no right to comment on morality. You should not need me to spell it out for you. Go and read about it. Heck, start with wiki.

    "This is just shameful. WE don't habe to understand the hows and whys of God to understand that he is operating under moral consequentialism. He derives the value of his morality (value ethics etc) from the outcome. This is PATENTLY obvious.

    I think we are definitely talking past one another. The value of what God does and allows is whatever God says it is and we don't have sufficient logic or understanding to judge them because we don't know what the outcome in its fullness will be. The problem you seem to have is that this makes God immoral in some way is stupid because you don't know what the outcome will be and you don't know any of the other possible outcomes. And before you try to side step this by hiding behind the idea that you are not saying God is immoral or non-existent, you have to explain just what point are you trying to make because it would follow that you should just get saved and be a Christian because you have no reason not to. This is just shameful. WE don't habe to understand the hows and whys of God to understand that he is operating under moral consequentialism. He derives the value of his morality (value ethics etc) from the outcome. This is PATENTLY obvious.

    I think we are definitely talking past one another. The value of what God does and allows is whatever God says it is and we don't have sufficient logic or understanding to judge them because we don't know what the outcome in its fullness will be. The problem you seem to have is that this makes God immoral in some way is stupid because you don't know what the outcome will be and you don't know any of the other possible outcomes. And before you try to side step this by hiding behind the idea that you are not saying God is immoral or non-existent, you have to explain just what point are you trying to make because it would follow that you should just get saved and be a Christian because you have no reason not to."

    My goodness, that says it all. You REALLY don't understand. I am not saying God is 'immoral'. I am saying that morality is defined by consequences, and not intrinsic value. Ie objective morality is either:
    1) non-existent
    2) value-less

    ReplyDelete
  3. So You aren't making any claims? huh? You don't read the whole post post and then claim that it's nonsense. At least I suffer through all of your crappy thoughts. You deleted the comment but I've seen it anyway.

    Johnny P

    has left a new comment on the post "FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Respons...

    ":

    For pete's sake. I've read twenty odd lines, and you don't stop saying complete crap.

    ""You ought to play chess tomorrow at three" makes feck all sense unless you load a prostasis in there. That was my point. It is no different with morality unless you want to equivocate on the word 'ought'.

    It makes since if someone commanded you to do it."

    That is consequentialist ethics / might is right. You are being good because someone told you to. How the hell is that doing something good out of an intrinsic ought? You have no idea what you are talking about.

    Again and again. And again.

    I can't be arsed with you. It's like talking to a brick wall. Go and study philosophy. don't make philosophical claims you have no idea how to defend.

    Good day.



    Nice try Johnny P. As I said, you don't have an ought unless you have a source of obligation. What is yours?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This, as I have said, and by your own admission (if you investigated your belief) is exactly what God does. He commits acts which are morally good. However, not intrinsically (the flood). so how do you define moral value if not in the objective intrinsic value? By the consequences. Hence consequentialism. Now the only sensible manner in which to do this is through happiness. There should then follow, and you are right in this, good debate as to what that entails as it 'can' be nebulous. However, it has the brilliant quality of being axiomatic, which makes it ideal as a motivator for morality.

    All said, you've really got to understand this point, and it seems to have gone over your head like a large marquee.

    Thus, claiming objective morality a) exists and b) is grounded by god means you have to jump through hurdles, the biggest of which is that God clearly acts on consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  5. perhaps you should delete it and try again. I'll wait

    ReplyDelete
  6. God and only God can can act as a standard to ground whether or not a personal opinion is correct

    No, mmcelhaney.blogspot.com fully acts as a standard supporting my opinion that you are a complete moron.

    perhaps you should delete it and try again.

    I'm not surprised you couldn't understand his post, but for a guy who pretends to be an apologist and armchair philosopher, you really should have been able to. It's pretty straight forward.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "But it was Justice that is why it was right. If not than capital punishment is immoral. Why can't God be free to have mercy on whom God wants and justly punish those God chooses to punish them, in the way God chooses to punish them."

    Again, proof that you don't understand the point. I couldn't care about justice etc. These are red herrings to valuing morality. You are simply not dealing with the point.

    "No, as A Christian, I would argue that God was right."

    Goodness. sheesh. Look, by saying he was right, you are inferring a moral ought. rather than just empty and meaningless assertion, you have to agree that God had rationality behind the rightness, otherwise it is random. How is this rightness valued? BY THE CONSEQUENCES!!! Deal with the issue, please.

    "Given that you are blind to the major detail that everything that God does is correct and perfect is why you are don't understand."


    AAAARRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!! Stop being wilfully dense. It doesn't matter that I don't know God's motivations, as long as he has some (ie not random). If he is not doing it for the intrinsic value (ie it's a GREAT THING to kill loads of people and animals, woo hoo!), the value must come from the consequences of the action.

    Look, to put it closer to home for you, take Jesus. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross served a greater good than the the intrinsic value of a death on a cross. This is the basis of consequentialism. consequentialism is not a good bedfellow to objective morality.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Johnny P, you have so many people agreeing with you?"

    Do you think any rational thinkers other than Ryan and myself (some kind of masochistic torture, reading your posts) come here?

    "That doesn't seem very apparent that you have studied anything and formed a worldview, given you say you haven't declared it and left me to guess."

    Again, I have made no declaration of morality. We are dealing with your morality. I am not saying mine is right, or mine is x, y, or z because that would provide a red herring for you to go off and post until the cows come home without feeling the need to defend your own account. My moral ethics can come later once we've bottomed out what YOU think. And I don't think yours is rationally held. Or at least, if you are right, it's for all the wrong reasons. (ie you don't really know how or why you are right). But you're not right anyway! :)

    "So, you are or are not saying that morality is grounded? In what?"

    Again, to define my morality would take, as with much philosophy, a good deal of ink. Let's look at yours first. Let's not shift the burden of proof.

    "If you assign a moral action the value of being 'good' or 'really good', you must also define your system of value.

    You first. "

    Oh my god. You've actually just tried to shift the burden of proof. "The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. "

    "What no hyperlink? Are we back to that?"

    If you can't copy and past a line then there is no hope for you. It's far less effort (in totality) than a hyperlink html code. Fact.

    In sum, the faceplant is all yours for not really understanding the philosophy of morlaity, and for committing another fine array of fallacies.

    ReplyDelete