Well, Johnny P is back bringing his weekly faceplant with him. I'd thought it would be worth making another post given the many comments Johnny P made and that Ryan Anderson inadvertently attempted some kind of "tag team" action. Didn't really help but just added to the fail. My comments will be red and italicized for past comments I made being responded to. Johnny P's "thoughts" will be in black and Ryan Anderson's will be purple..
"Do you have any realization how bankrupt that is?"
Johnny P replies
Argument from Desire.
My desire or your's or Ryan Anderson? Remember what Anderson's argument was: If he had been born a Nazi, he agree that Hitler was right and that there is no reason or way to define whether or not Hitler's, or others like his, are right or wrong. Who's making an argument from desire again?
"you'd have no reason above your own predilection to defend your right to exist."
Where do rights exist? What are rights? How do you establish their objective existence condition?
eg http://www.guardian.co.uk/
"The video defined all the questions you had. The point was that you were supposed to watch the video."
I have watched the video, as I have many of QualiaSoup's vids. I was, however, commenting on you comments. You seem rather good at building straw men.
Why would I restate or argue against points already agreed to and conceded in the video on which I was commenting? The Straw men are your own, Johnny P.
"If morality is not grounded, then how do you conclude that my meaning of "ought" is wrong?"
Firstly, you have to prove it is grounded, and prove that 'being grounded' makes any sense.
The video conceded that it was. The video ineptly argued that you can have morality without grounding it in God.
Secondly, it is a non sequitur to say that because it is grounded it develops an ought.
So Johnny P partly disagrees with the video and some philosophers who believe that there are moral outghts.
Especially since I have already set out the point that you cannot, linguistically speaking, have an intrinsic ought. If is defined by the context, although the apodosis [Johnny P later admits that he used the wrong word here] is usually hidden / assumed.
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.
"No, you know what I meant. Wait you might be too stupid to know the context of what I meant."
This really shows that you are the stupid one, but try and get away with it by attacking others for being stupid. It's a cheap and disingenuous trick.
So, it's okay to insult me and question my mental faculties, education, and sanity but I can't question yours or express my opinion? I understand. I disagree but I understand why you would resort to that. Can't blame you. That's all you have.
I raise the point that you need to have the apodosis in order to make sense of a conditional phrase - if...then (ought). I show this by using an example. Yes, most people would make sense of the sentence "You ought to put oil in your car" and this is because they are understanding a hidden apodosis of "If you want your car to work properly".
I'd take for grant it that you would want to be able to substantiate your opinion when there are others who disagree with you. 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.
You calling me stupid just shows you don't understand the point.
So you are saying my opinion is wrong? How do you know? Can you demonstrate that I am wrong about your level of intelligence?
That being you cannot have a free-standing ought.
Assertions, anyone?
There is always an if. Usually, in moral terms, it revolves around happiness.
That is a pathetic place to ground morality. Who's happiness? The oppressor's happiness? The oppressed? How do you expect to quantify that? September 11, 2001 made the terrorists and Jiihadists happy, does that mean the terrorists acted morally?
This is even true for religious types. It can be argued that happiness is derived by getting into heaven or avoiding hell. Thus the oughts have a clear consequentialist dimension.
Ahhh...here is the disconnect,. In Christianity, if you think that it's primarily about avoiding hell, you don't understand what you are rejecting. While there is a consequential dimension for sure that does not determine "oughts". Somethings ought to be done or not done no matter the context or circumstances.
I'm sure you've considered this all in your wide-ranging and highly in depth opinions on morality.
The real question is are you so far gone that don't see how bankrupt your opinions on morality are because they are certainly opinions divorced from reality.
Johnny P had said:
"The value of morality is derived by consequence."
To which I had replied
Prove that.
Check the bible. If you can't understand this from the accounts of the Old Testament, then get back to me or do some reading on morality. Oh, and just be careful the next time you tell me, in debate, that all the suffering in the world can be accounted for the fact that we don't know the mind of God and it must be serving a greater good / purpose. Only because, with those views, you and every other Christian admit that God is a moral consequentialist. Prove it? God has ample times.
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? You tend to seem to hate a god that I would definitely say does not exist. Your straw god. It's more than just God asks or commands anything expedient at the time, there really are reasons why God allows or decrees the things he does. Think of Joseph - betrayed by his brothers, sold into slavery, falsely accused of attempted rape, imprisoned for years in Egypt, and finally becoming second only to Pharoah, but when he reflected on those experiences he came to the following conclusion.
18 His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. “We are your slaves,” they said.
19 But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. 21 So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.- Genesis 50:18-21
"What's really worthless is your analysis because your arguing against the wrong God - one who is like you instead of the God in the Bible."
Oh dear. I couldn't give a shit what god I am arguing against.
If you are not arguing against the God of the Bible, then your arguments are even more worthless here than I thought.
If an entity commits any act for the eventual consequences it derives, then he is carrying out moral consequentialism. Go and research the Trolley Problem - morality 101. It is why Absolute Morality is untenable. While you're at it, look into the Inquiring Murderer as a criticism of Kant's Categorical Imperative (ought).
So what? Is Johnny P arguing that moral consquentialism is wrong or immoral? How does that make God monsterous? What is your point? That does not mean that God cannot tell us what we ought to do or what we ought not to do.
"No, but even you should be able to follow the hyperlinks"
Do you know how long it takes your blog pages to load? It's fricking annoying. It is not my computer. As Ryan says, it is across multiple high performance computers.
Oh, we are back to whining about how slow my blog is on your computer? Don't like it? Don't read it. Doesn't help your argument at all.
"This puts a physically illustration to just how much of bankrupt failure yours and Johnny P's arguments really are"
And yet, Dr William Lane Craig continues to win debates. LOL. Maybe Johnny P should debate him, since he seems to think he can clearly do better. Now that would be funny. Embarrassing for you, but still quite entertaining.
They are logically valid, but unsound arguments. All writers use badgers' guts for pens. Jimmy is a writer. Jimmy uses badgers' guts for pens. Is logically valid, but utter shite.
Now that's a "professional" assessment. Obviously it's wrong because of the premise that all writers use pens, let alone badgers' guts. None of the premises in the Moral Argument or the KCA are nearly as faulty. Go ahead and take your best shot. Better folks than you have tried.
So don't throw mud at people in an attempt to refute them when you need to look more closely at your own reasoning and understanding of the topic.
I haven't thrown mud, your arguments dumb enough without my help.
In case you can't be arsed to read up, I'll do the work for you:
In a giving mood are we? Must be the Christmas season. Watch now how Johnny P, quotes from a source(s) and provides no documentation or authorship for several paragraphs he probably pasted from his Google searches.
When debating morality and ethics with Christian theists, scorn is often poured on secular ethicists who adhere to moral disciplines that are not grounded in God. Usually, these moral approaches are consequentialist in nature. In other words, moral actions are defined by the consequences they deliver as opposed to the intrinsic morality of the action itself. The ends justify the means. As an example, such an approach might well be utilitarianism. Though this appears in many guises (for example, act and rule utilitarianism), it basically dictates that a good action is one which derives the most ‘good’, or happiness, as a consequence.
I don't think that it has anything to do with trying to optimize human happiness. Why don't we see what God says about this: There are several scriptures that deal with this very question, but let's just look at one of them.
4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.- Ephesians 1:4-12
This passage explains that God is in sovereign control and that he is acting according to what he has purposed, not according to the happiness of humanity. More of Johnny P's Straw god.
Theists claim that good acts are good intrinsically, and the basis for this goodness is the nature of God himself. Now, I do not want to get into the vagaries of Divine Command Theories but suffice it to say there are many good arguments against such positions.
What might they be? Would be nice if Johnny P had provided the reference and quotation marks.
What is important to understand, however, is that God is not a moral absolutist; he is, at least extremely often, a moral consequentialist. In other words, God does not (again, at least very commonly) believe that actions are right or wrong, regardless of their consequences or the contexts in which the actions take place, but derive their rightness from their context or consequences.
The proof for this is unbelievably commonplace. We could start with the sacrifice and death of Jesus.
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.
But there are far more obvious acts (or omissions). Take Noah’s flood. The death of all of humanity bar eight, the death of billions of animals and ecosystems, would strike many as being ‘not good’.
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.
Many could argue that such an action (enacted by God) is intrinsically bad. However, God nevertheless enacted this destruction. Why? Because there was a greater good that would come from it – there has to be or God cannot be labelled all-loving. The end justifies the means. God is being a consequentialist.
God defines and purposes both mean and ends...that's missing from consideration.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.
Let’s look at God allowing the 2004 tsunami, allowing the Holocaust, the floods, volcanoes, fires, other tsunamis and every single natural disaster since the beginning of time... In fact, by God allowing every single bit of suffering, every single death, that has ever happened to any human being or animal since the Big Bang (or Genesis Creation) we can see that on every single occasion God has been consequentialist. The consequences of every single piece of suffering must (if God is all loving, powerful enough to have it otherwise and knowledgeable enough to know how to have it otherwise) outweigh the intrinsic ‘badness’ of the action.
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?
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.- Romans 8:18-21
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.
False dilemma.
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.
Short-sighted due to limited cognition
Therefore, the next time you get into a debate about morality with a theist and they try to denigrate secular consequentialism, demand that they explain such a criticism in light of God’s ubiquitous reliance on the virtue of consequentialism himself.
Well given that God decrees and orders means and ends, I wouldn't conclude that God is relying on anything else.
Marcus, if I ever thought you thought my opinion carried any weight, then I would know I was doing something drastically wrong.
And yet, Ryan, keeps giving his opinion.
And dummy, Californian = a quality. Vile = a quality.
Californian is a description and not a quality. "Vile" is a value judgement not just a description. Did you ever take an English class while your were "learning" Kione Greek?
Johnny P; as an atheist, please make sure you cease and desist from using any adjectives ever, if you ever become a theist (or does it specifically have to be the COGIC sect?) you may begin using adjectives again.
Actually you both need to learn how to use adjectives correctly. And for the record, there are many denominiations and sects that have born-again Christians in them, Ryan. Don't get mad because you were never one of them and don't know what you speak of. Jesus still loves both of you.
Thanks to Marcus for the heads up.
You're welcome. Hopefully this helped clear up your confusion.
I know Ryan, it's hilarious in the sheer enormity of his naivety.
"you can't honestly and consistently refer to our attitude as "vile" because you have no basis to ground or define what is "vile". You are the one constantly arguing that morality doesn't need an objective basis. "
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.
You are not, Ryan, entitled to a personal opinion unless it is verified as sufficiently metaphysically grounded by the Great Arbiter of Language, Marcus. Only he shall decree the veracity of conceptual claims of individuals to ensure they are, in fact, directly correlative to the inspired objective mind of God.
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.
You cannot think or speak, Ryan, unless it is exactly in accordance with the thoughts and words of the Almighty.
And so the crock of crap continues.
Correction: Apologies, on re-reading an earlier post, I used 'apodosis' when I meant 'prostasis'.
Apology accepted. Doesn't improve your arguments, however.
Also,
As Thomas Wren said in Moral obligations: action, intention, and valuation, writes:
“The moral ought is like technological oughts in that it has to do with means toward an end. These include not only external means, which are tools, and immanent means, which are actions, but also, and just as unavoidably, means one step removed from action and which are moral virtues.
Finally a viable citation. Doesn't rebutt what I already have written above, but nice try.
The search for justification is, so to speak, a hunting expedition for a “lost prostasis”. This is true of attempts to justify any attempts to justify non-imperative, moral or non-moral; it is also true of attempts to justify non-imperatives that are practical principles or value judgements, since, as we have seen from Hare, the assent to a value-judgement – a judgement in which a practical principle is formulated – entails assent to a correlative imperative.
Thus nothing said so far counts as a justification for moral imperatives qua imperatives. Such as justification, if it can be given, would provide a prostasis appropriate to the imperative “Be moral”. Or to put it more simply, it would be the answer to the supremely important transmoral metaethical questions, “Why be moral?”
Well why? And how do you know what "moral" is without justification given that not everyone you come in contact with may agree with you?…
Perhaps what is expressed in such sentences by the word “ought” is closer to a descriptive or structural law than to a prescriptive or commanding one.”
(p. 83-94)
Descriptive? So there is no need to justify protecting the weak? What about persecuting and oppressing the weak? We must not just ask "Why be moral?" but also "Why not be immmoral?" I find nothing in Ryan Anderson's or Johnny P's worldviews and subjective opinions to answer such question, yet they cling to moral values and deny the binding of them. Most definitely another faceplant.
What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #16
