- 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
