tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post2804648555672806971..comments2024-02-29T23:54:20.606-08:00Comments on What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #17mmcelhaneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-28223435281896994432011-11-19T16:20:04.864-08:002011-11-19T16:20:04.864-08:00"Thus, even if intrinsic moral values exist a..."Thus, even if intrinsic moral values exist as well as consequentialism, it seems that consequentialism trumps intrinsic moral value every time suffering is allowed to happen.<br /><br />Short-sighted due to limited cognition"<br /><br />Eh?<br /><br />"Nope, I'm saying that the moral value that it's vile to post a boy falling on his face has not basis without an objective standard. Without the standard, it's just your opinion verses my opinion and a waste of time arguing about."<br /><br />Incorrect if (secular) moral deontology holds. You must disprove it to hold to that. Also, how do you compare the value of a subjectively held belief over an objective one, if they exist? You have no basis, other than YOUR own subjective opinion that objective has more value than subjective. From whence is the value derived? More webs of philosophical issues for you.<br /><br />"I'm saying that without a standard, your opinion is meaningless and no more true than any other conflicting opinion."<br /><br />Therefore, you claim a personal standard is no standard. Next time you beat your PB in a swimming race, it has no value. Next time you say 'that picture is pretty' when someone else deems it ugly, you are not entitled to that personal value and standard? Hmmm.<br /><br />"Without justification, how do you decide that you are doing the correct thing when people's deed contradict your own. For example, when a thief tries to rob you, how do you justify stopping him, when he believes he's correct in robbing you? Of course this assumes you disagree with him. Or what if someone wanted to kill you. What justification could you offer that one ought not kill you?"<br /><br />This is the whole point about sorting out a moral epistemology. However, you claim it can only be objectively derived by God. However, most philosophers think otherwise. There is virtue ethics, consequentialism and utilitarianism, secular deontology, objective morality grounded in universal facts and logic etc etc.<br /><br />The "Why be moral?" question shows that we cannot ought for the sake of ought (intrinsic moral ought). We ought to do things to adhere to the structure of an if... then scenario. <br /><br />In other words, moral value is extrinsic, or instrumental. Again, see the trolley problem and inquiring murderer for a little more thought.Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-70836924335302780882011-11-19T16:09:17.846-08:002011-11-19T16:09:17.846-08:00"And this is bad because? Is the problem that..."And this is bad because? Is the problem that to Johnny P, and this person he plagiarized, it follows that God is not benevolent? Really? The argument is that all of this will lead to the most good and we don't know if the most good could be accomplished any other way, do we? What we do know, God's plan to bring about the greatest good includes some short-term pain and suffering for people now. So?"<br /><br />Firstly, you dolt, this is my own writing. I did not plagiarize it at all. I have turned it from my own blog post into a video (which QualiSoup claimed was an 'excellent video' and nonstmapcollector stated 'And a very interesting response it was, with a perspective that I (and Dr Craig) hadn't considered.'). You can accuse me of plagiarising all you like. I do, as much as is possible in philosophy spanning almost 3000 years, original thought. It seems like you merely spout second rate Craig arguments. You moral stance seems to be Craig's Moral Argument without understanding the philosophy it needs to overcome. When you study philosophy, if you ever do, you end up thinking about this stuff a lot.<br /><br />Don't false accuse me again (bearing false witness?).<br /><br />And to add insult to injury, you don't even understand the point. Again. I do not claim God is not benevolent. I claim that his benevolence must be derived from the consequences to the action, not the intrinsic moral value of them (they are not morally right intrinsically). Again, reference to the Inquiring Murderer refutation of Kantian Categorical Imperatives is apt here.<br /><br />Your final sentence merely confirms my point and is in complete agreement. Which further shows you don;t understand the point since you seem to be agreeing with it whilst trying hard to disagree with it!!!<br /><br />"So either God (or the theist) believes that actions are not intrinsically good or bad, or the consequences of the actions are more important than the intrinsic value of the actions.<br /><br /> False dilemma."<br /><br />What the f"ck? How is that a false dilemma? Would you like to explain yourself? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You are embarrassing yourself now.<br /><br />You claim objective morality. Where does the moral value come from? How is it derived.<br /><br />Most philosophers will agree that pleasure (happiness) and pain have intrinsic value. They have value in and of themselves. The problem is that a moral objectivist has to argue that a moral action has intrinsic moral value. This is the problem. It seems that the value is extrinsic, as we saw from the examples of the bible. God derives the moral value extrinsically from the action. You admitted this yourself, though you did not realise.<br /><br />Now, we could look to see if the consequences have intrinsic value. These nonderiviative values must exist, because it would be an infinite regress of asking why one does something. This is why its fundamental to ethical theories that happiness and pain are axiomatic - they are nonderviative values - intrinsic. And this is why philosophers gravitate towards them. Philosophers are generally split many ways over moral philosophy because you can combine ideas. For example, you can claim objective morality grounded in consequentialism. Sam Harris does this in the Moral Landscape. However, he is philosophically naive. His conclusions are noble, but his philosophy crude. Richard Carrier in Sense and Goodness Without God, A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism does a much better job. Likewise, you can have consequentialism rooted in subjective morality and so on. Also, many deontologists are secular. You can, arguably, ground morality within a naturalistic framework.<br /><br />What most theists do is smuggle Ultimate Purpose and Consequence under the guise of objective morality. In other words, objective morality is almost defined as morality that matters, or has ultimate consequence (heaven / hell / eternal soul etc).Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-33321231432922877522011-11-19T15:14:25.438-08:002011-11-19T15:14:25.438-08:00"The Bible does not agree, therefore Christia..."The Bible does not agree, therefore Christianity does not agree. Text after text in the Bible admonishes humans to do right and shun evil - regardless of convenience or happiness. No one should become a Christian to make themselves happy. You will be sorely disappointed in the short run. It's about denying what you want and doing the right thing because it's right not because of what you are getting out of it. "<br /><br />You are just simply wrong. Moral consequentialism Is borne out by the bible.The standard definition of consequentialism: "Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence."<br /><br />"Jesus voluntarily substituted Himself for us to have the wrath of God poured out on himself for sin. And given that Jesus is God incarnate (Trinitarian doctrine), the objection further fails. "<br /><br />Yes, dear, but the morality of that act is defined by the consequences.<br /><br />"No it was just judgement. Just because God has chosen to give us more grace than God gave them does not mean that God acted immorally. God is free to punish or extend mercy to whomever God chooses whenever God chooses."<br /><br />It gets worse, if that 'spossible. So judgement has no moral dimension. God had no 'ought' to judge, it was just arbitrary? Are you for real? You can't say this act was morally neutral, which is what you imply. It was the 'right' thing for God to have done, no? Right thing is a moral value. How is this value defined? You guessed it, by the consequences.<br /><br />"If the point is that God is acting in the best interest of what He has created to bring glory Himself, I don't see the reason for the objection. You can say you don't like it and/or that you don't trust God to do what is best for you, but if Christianity is correct, it doesn't matter what you or think about what God decides to do or how God decides to do it."<br /><br />So the moral value of the action is one which brings more value on God himself? Are you serious? That's a worse claim than Hitler's actions were A-OK. And no, it doesn't matter what I think about God's decisions. That's not the point. What matter is whether they are intrinsically moral, or moral as defined by the consequences.Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-85013320880477620252011-11-19T11:44:42.227-08:002011-11-19T11:44:42.227-08:00Response at http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/11...Response at <a href="http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/11/faceplant-epic-fail-tisk-tisk-johnny-p_19.html" rel="nofollow">http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/11/faceplant-epic-fail-tisk-tisk-johnny-p_19.html</a>mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-33718734382402755652011-11-19T05:20:17.550-08:002011-11-19T05:20:17.550-08:00Oh, and sorry about your loss. This must be hard ...Oh, and <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21188-more-data-shows-neutrinos-still-faster-than-light.html" rel="nofollow">sorry about your loss</a>. This must be hard for you to take.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-26983747169386392022011-11-19T04:59:41.214-08:002011-11-19T04:59:41.214-08:00I didn't say that anyone isn't entitled to...<b>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.</b><br /><br />Simple yes or no question. In your opinion, can god only and only god act as a standard to ground personal opinions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-53817784560055316252011-11-19T04:38:06.116-08:002011-11-19T04:38:06.116-08:00"We are not on God's level. He is the gro..."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?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 a Christian would argue, given the knowledge of all the consequences, adn given a greater good to come from it, it is morally benign.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Anyone with a passing interest in moral philosophy (and I have studied it) will know of these issues. <br /><br />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. If you assign a moral action the value of being 'good' or 'really good', you must also define your system of value.<br /><br />For a good article on the circularity and logical incoherence of appealing to God as the grounds to morality, see here:<br />http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FDoesMoralityDepend.htm.Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-30439209654472914292011-11-19T04:37:36.591-08:002011-11-19T04:37:36.591-08:00Sweet bejesus, this is painful. Look, first of all...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.<br /><br />I'll ignore all the juvenile stuff about html etc.<br /><br />Right, I have only read the first section and that was enough to make me want to cry with exasperation.<br /><br />OK:<br /><br />"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?"<br /><br />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. 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.<br /><br />"The video conceded that it was. The video ineptly argued that you can have morality without grounding it in God."<br /><br />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. 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.<br /><br />"So Johnny P partly disagrees with the video and some philosophers who believe that there are moral outghts."<br /><br />I believe there can be moral oughts, or oughts about morality, but they are not intrinsic. Semantically, it is incoherent. <br /><br />"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'.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />See the trolley problem or the inquiring murderer problem. <br /><br />"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. "<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.com