- For pete's sake. I've read twenty odd lines, and you don't stop saying complete crap.
A lot of those first 20 lines were quoting you, Johnny P. That must of been the problem. But I thought that I was really clear about what was what I said and what you said. Go figure.
""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.
You still haven't explained why that's a problem, yet but you will try further along. . Oh you might try to weasel out and say you are not saying that consequentialist ethics is wrong, but you wouldn't be that dishonest would you?
Again and again. And again.
I deleted my last post by ending here, but I feel generous.
Ought you be generous? Intrinsically?
"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.
I did not say that the "trolly problem" was meaningless. I'm saying that just trotting it out without a context is meaningless. Without that I have no reason to assume you know what you are talking about. By the way saying that I have no right to comment on morality is just your silly opinion and valueless according to Ryan anyway. And following is where this particular comment gets confusing. Johnny P must have had a problem copying and pasting. He said the following
"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.
And then my response follows with the above paragraph following it. Let me try to help the reader out by marking where the two statements are. Mine are in red and italicized.
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.
And then Johnny P just pastes what I wrote again.
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
Now here is the point, I think. First he did do what I asked him not to do and claim that he's not saying that God is immoral. But let's skip that a second. The Morality in the Bible is not just defined defined by consequences. Earlier in the exchange I brought up the account of Joseph in Genesis. Johnny P probably didn't read that part given that he says my posts aren't worth reading or responding to yet he sure seems to go on responding to parts of them. Joseph's life turned out well despite all the evil dealt to him but does that make it moral that his brothers sold him into slavery and lied to their father Jacob about his death? No. Does it make it moral that Potiphar's wife tried to seduce Joseph and then lied on him saying that he tried to rape her? No. No where does the Bible try to condone these acts of evil although all of them lead to Joseph saving the known world from starvation. That is an example that belies Johnny P's argument. - November 19, 2011 1:12 PM
- 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.
Nope. The flood was not evil. God was well within his rights to send the flood and save only those He saved.
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.
Again who's happiness would you use to judge that?
All said, you've really got to understand this point, and it seems to have gone over your head like a large marquee.
Happiness is a poor measure. You still never defined what you mean by whose happiness should be in view to determined what is morally right or morally wrong.
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.
Um,. the Bible says that God acts on His own will and purpose. Try again. - November 19, 2011 1:12 PM
- 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.
That has nothing to do with proving that your personal opinion is correct or not. Sounds like a desperate ad hominem attack however. Congratulations.
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.
The comment I thought that should be repeated was the butchered copy and pasting from Johnny P in the comment marked November 19, 2011 1:12 PM. It's above in case you are lost.
-
November 19, 2011 1:20 PM
- "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.
Johnny P has missed the point. You can't have "happiness" as I would define it without Justice. Without Justice and mercy, morality has no value. I can state that if you are free to state your opinion that Justice is irrelevant.
"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.
You seem under the mistaken thought that I'm saying that the consequences are irrelevant. I'm not. I'm saying that we don't know God's rationality but it's not just consequences because that would mean that all the means involved in reaching those conclusion are also moral and we know that's irrational because then God wouldn't care about what we do in order to reach His consequences. Given your Biblical illiteracy you might not know this but there are many places where God allows rival nations to oppress Israel and God took credit for it because of their disobedience and immorality. Yet God punished these very nations for these offenses yet He used them to chasten Israel. No it's not just about the ends justifying the means. You keep arguing a straw god.
"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.
The value does not always equal the consequences. The value is whatever God says it is.
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.
Was Jesus dying on the cross a good thing? Was it correct? Just because a good outcome expresses itself does not mean the means by which it was done is good and moral. The moral standard God has given us is objective relative to us, not God and based on who God is not what we like or what makes us happy. - November 19, 2011 1:25 PM
- "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?
Can you prove they're aren't? That's a very arrogant and insulting statement against the hundreds of people who come to my blog everyday from all over the word. If it were anyone else saying something like that I'd say is was an "argument" beneath them but it fits you perfectly. One of the reasons why my blog loads as it does is that I have several pieces of code tracking such things. You sure are clueless and ignorant.
"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! :)
I've been very clear about what I say morality is and why I hold my positions. You say you can't be bothered to read my whole posts so I doubt you are even capable of understanding my arguments. I am confident that your moral ethics don't answer or have more consistency than a Biblical world view.
"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.
So in a word, Johnny answers "No".
"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 sure don't have a moral problem irreverently invoking God's title. And here I thought you said He doesn't exist.
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. "
You have made several claims and assertions and have not backed up any of them.
"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.
Given his botched comment earlier today, I wouldn't question my abilities if I were Johnny P. A single click is always the least effort. FACT.
In sum, the faceplant is all yours for not really understanding the philosophy of morlaity, and for committing another fine array of fallacies.
At least I can type "morality". Thanks for again illustrating what a Faceplant reads like. - November 19, 2011 2:01 PM
What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #18
For someone who purports to be an html genius, my comments are not in, in fact, in purple.
ReplyDeleteJust FYI...
Yup, I didn't make them purple. Doesn't make you any more correct.
ReplyDelete"""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'.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
You still haven't explained why that's a problem, yet but you will try further along. . Oh you might try to weasel out and say you are not saying that consequentialist ethics is wrong, but you wouldn't be that dishonest would you? "
This really is another example of your naivety. It makes sense if someone commands it. So if I command you to steal from Peter, would you do it? No. Not on it'd own. But if the object being stolen was the cure for cancer that he was keeping hidden, then it would be morally right based on the consequences. This is the theory behind 'Just War', too, though it is a lot more complex. Also, as with God etc, if the consequences of doing something is complicated by pain of death, or joy of heaven, then motivation for an act is again affected. You are in danger of a simple might is right here - a divine command theory issue.
"Ought you be generous? Intrinsically?"
Whici is why I gave a personal opinion - I feel generous.
"Oh you might try to weasel out and say you are not saying that consequentialist ethics is wrong,"
ReplyDeleteI DON'T say consequentialist ethics is wrong. I argue that it is the reality of moral actions. I argue that because God shows consequentialist ethics to be the arbiter of moral value in his actions, then one of two things happens:
1) objective morality does not exist
2) objective morality exists but its value is worthless as it is ubiquitously trumped in favour of the value of the consequences.
This seems to be something you struggle to get.
"No. No where does the Bible try to condone these acts of evil although all of them lead to Joseph saving the known world from starvation. That is an example that belies Johnny P's argument."
No no no no. This shows you just don't understand the philosophy of morality. The morality of Potiphar's actions are defined how? By the intrinsic value of the actions themselves? Or by the context leading on to the consequences.
Look, to spell this out, let's refer to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Suppose that someone were to ask you whether it is good to help others in time of need. Unless you suspected some sort of trick, you would answer, “Yes, of course.” If this person were to go on to ask you why acting in this way is good, you might say that it is good to help others in time of need simply because it is good that their needs be satisfied. If you were then asked why it is good that people's needs be satisfied, you might be puzzled. You might be inclined to say, “It just is.” Or you might accept the legitimacy of the question and say that it is good that people's needs be satisfied because this brings them pleasure. But then, of course, your interlocutor could ask once again, “What's good about that?” Perhaps at this point you would answer, “It just is good that people be pleased,” and thus put an end to this line of questioning. Or perhaps you would again seek to explain the fact that it is good that people be pleased in terms of something else that you take to be good. At some point, though, you would have to put an end to the questions, not because you would have grown tired of them (though that is a distinct possibility), but because you would be forced to recognize that, if one thing derives its goodness from some other thing, which derives its goodness from yet a third thing, and so on, there must come a point at which you reach something whose goodness is not derivative in this way, something that “just is” good in its own right, something whose goodness is the source of, and thus explains, the goodness to be found in all the other things that precede it on the list. It is at this point that you will have arrived at intrinsic goodness.[10] That which is intrinsically good is nonderivatively good; it is good for its own sake. That which is not intrinsically good but extrinsically good is derivatively good; it is good, not (insofar as its extrinsic value is concerned) for its own sake, but for the sake of something else that is good and to which it is related in some way. Intrinsic value thus has a certain priority over extrinsic value. The latter is derivative from or reflective of the former and is to be explained in terms of the former. It is for this reason that philosophers have tended to focus on intrinsic value in particular."
So the question remains, "Why be moral?"
ReplyDeleteBy this, you should have realised the implications of the question, philosophically speaking. Why be good? In order to be good? Ie, because it has intrinsic value? This is what moral objectivists would like to argue. But it is difficult. It becomes mere assertion that 'being good' has intrinsic value. We can see that from the biblical accounts, and from everyday experience, we derive the moral value in an action from the consequences, which is usually seen in some context of happiness. This is because happiness, unlike goodness, is nonderiviative. You stop asking 'why' too early, and are satisfied with 'because it's good'. My argument is that that is not good enough. Just being good to be good is a mere tautology that I find meaningless.
There is a great thought experiment to explain this:
God comes to you and tells you there are transcendent, unconditional moral oughts. Just imagine that in this world all the things you ‘ought’ to do, from a moral point of view (a moral ought), happen to cause unfathomable pain, suffering and injustice and will land you up in hell where you will experience eternal torment. And just imagine that in this world, all the ‘ought nots’ happen to promote peace, health, happiness and justice and will ultimately land you in heaven where you will have eternal bliss alongside your Creator.
What course of action would you take – how would you live your life? Would you adhere to these transcendental moral oughts.
This shows that our lives are not bound by unconditional, transcendental moral oughts but by rational oughts. Our choices and our behaviour is informed by rationalisations depending on the circumstances we wish to actualise. Whether a god exists or not, a world in which transcendental moral oughts exist would be indistinguishable from a world in which only rational oughts exist. Therefore, not only can moral oughts be seen as trivial, but they also have little practical value. It does nothing to give our moral claims a more solid foundation.
Saying that we need transcendental, intangible unconditional moral obligations in order to have objective moral facts is the same as saying we need transcendental, intangible, medical obligations in order to have facts about medical health.
Morality is the science of maximising social and societal wellbeing just like medicine and nutrition are the science of maximising physiological wellbeing. Moral facts, just like medical facts, exist. There are empirically moral and empirically immoral things that we can do.
If your moral philosophy is completely divorced from real world issues of happiness and suffering, if morality has nothing to do with the pursuit of maximising wellbeing. If it truly has no stake whatsoever in actualising an ideal circumstance in this life or the next….
then what bloody use is it?
This shows that we value moral actions through the consequences and would always act within such a framework.
The problem with you is that you keep posting extracts of the bible to argue your point. Look, not even Bill Craig does this - he knows it is an invalid tactic. The problem with the bible is that it does not explain its philosophy. It doesn't give you a deductive argument that tells you how morality is grounded in god and so on. It is assertion after assertion, and your biblical extracts are useless in such a debate. We are not discussing biblical exegesis. I'd be happy to discuss Matt 27 as non-factual (perhaps even poetic, as Licona would argue) etc. I love discussing biblical exegesis. But it has no place in these discussions, and the sooner you realise this, the better. You would get NOWHERE in a philosophy department or philosophical essay trotting out random quote after random quote. How does Potiphar's wife tell us whether morality is transcendental and objective. At best it can only assert something from a faux position of authority. What you need is a Christian philosopher, such as Richard Swinburne, to philosophical extricate the basic tenets, and treat them philosophically - creating syllogisms and the like. And even Swinburne gives way to consequentialism:
ReplyDelete"It is... permissible to use someone for the good of others if on balance you are their benefacto..." (Providence and the Problem of Evil, 1998, p. 233)
Now if you want to get into it, Swinburne declares God is consequentialist (that he can harm people for the good of others), but is allowed to be on the basis of his authority.
"Nope. The flood was not evil. God was well within his rights to send the flood and save only those He saved."
Oh good god, it's like arguing with a child. You are either being wilfully ignorant, or you really are this ignorant. How many times do I have to say? How do you quantify the flood was not evil? On what basis do you value the morality? Everyone else in the world values this by the consequences. If no good came from it, and it was merely destructive for the sake of being destructive - would it be good? Take it out of context. Now put it back in. God 'ought' to exact justice, start over and save those he did. It was right, no, that he did this? Or was it wrong?
If it was right, how do judge this rightness?
It really seems you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Please, do yourself some favours and think before you write. All these people you seem to be appealing to in some kind of immature rhetorical game, can surely see that you are a moral newbie. You've put your fingers in the moral flame and got burnt. Go away and learn from this. read some books. Don't just assert crappy point after crappy point and then throw in a bible quote. I could throw in a Qu'ran quote. so what. Unless it has valid philosophical argumentation, it is not relevant. It does not have valid philosophical argumentation.
"Again who's happiness would you use to judge that?"
Wahey!! The first good question you have asked. This has merit. Once we have bottomed out whether objective morality makes sense, then we can see what the alternatives are, and whether they stand up to scrutiny.
"Happiness is a poor measure. You still never defined what you mean by whose happiness should be in view to determined what is morally right or morally wrong."
Again, a good point, for which there are many answers. However, again, we need to look at objective morality first, then look at utilitarian ethics. Otherwise you will be muddying the waters and putting up smokescreens.
"Um,. the Bible says that God acts on His own will and purpose. Try again."
This is brilliant. Sooo funny. Everything you say is shocking. You say he acts on his own purpose, but don't see the purpose as having a moral dimension!!!! Either his purpose is morally benign or morally malign! In which case, where is the moral value grounded and how?
"Johnny P has missed the point. You can't have "happiness" as I would define it without Justice. Without Justice and mercy, morality has no value. I can state that if you are free to state your opinion that Justice is irrelevant."
ReplyDeleteJustice and mercy supervenes on happiness or morality itself. Why be just or merciful. these are moral actions!!! You can't derive to just or merciful and end there. These are deriviative values!
This is great:
"At least I can type "morality""
Wow. What a clincher. We all make typos, I make many since I type very quickly and am usually angry with you. Sticks and eyes, Marcus. You use 'must of been' - an elementary grammatical mistake; using who's instead of whose and so on.
What a terribly juvenile way to end your thoroughly inept critique.
Seriously, Marcus, go and read a book on moral philosophy. Do us all a favour.
Oh sweet mother, did Marcus really call you out on a typo? Of all people!!!
ReplyDeleteResponse at http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/11/faceplant-epic-fail-tisk-tisk-johnny-p_20.html
ReplyDelete