And so we're back to: "God did it!"

When I say "morality", I mean "absolute morality". If God doesn't exist, there isn't an absolute standard for morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is exactly what I disagreed with. I suggest you reread my previous posts, I'm not going to repeat everything I said. And I continue to keep my stance that it is therefore arrogant because you continue to simply state that without a god there is no absolute morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I said: you are creating a relation between absolute morality and god, that you cannot prove, let alone that you can even prove that if you remove god, absolute morality will be gone to.

Which is exactly what I disagreed with. I suggest you reread my previous posts, I'm not going to repeat everything I said. And I continue to keep my stance that it is therefore arrogant because you continue to simply state that without a god there is no absolute morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I said: you are creating a relation between absolute morality and god, that you cannot prove, let alone that you can even prove that if you remove god, absolute morality will be gone to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you believe in absolute morality you need a standard for it. I have already explained to you that logic cannot be a standard for absolute morality, and you have failed to give me an example showing the opposite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you believe in absolute morality, please explain what godless standard you use, and how it works in application.

 

XplsvBam and Insane:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neither of you are taking into account that God, today, very well may not exist, and thus we would still have these morals anyways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And even if he DOES exist, people had these morals before God let us know what they were. You can argue he automatically instilled them in us all, but that's a stupid argument, and why would he feel the need to tell us, then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But whatever, believe what you guys want. God = Morality and the rest of us just don't get it.

 

 

 

But there point is that those morals would be subjective, not objective, morals, and thus fairly worthless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God, theoretically, is the source of absolute morals. We are sources of subjective morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feel free to correct me if I didn't understand your points; I'm not speaking for them, just interpreting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if all the major countries around the world adopted these subjective morals, what then? They would be fairly common and deffinitly not worthless. Instead of a god instiling morals it would be the government(s).

If you believe in absolute morality you need a standard for it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can turn that question around and say 'if you believe in a god, you need evidence for it'. No, I don't need any standard to believe that absolute morality can exist without needing a god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have already explained to you that logic cannot be a standard for absolute morality, and you have failed to give me an example showing the opposite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have not "explained" anything considering you fail to come up with facts, evidence and what not.

I can turn that question around and say 'if you believe in a god, you need evidence for it'. No, I don't need any standard to believe that absolute morality can exist without needing a god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No you're missing the entire point. If you believe in ABSOLUTE morality, there has to be something that makes it absolute. I don't want evidence that what you believe the standard is exists - but you have to have a standard, otherwise it's not absolute. The definition of absolute necessitates that you have a standard to base your morality on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have not "explained" anything considering you fail to come up with facts, evidence and what not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I have and if you know anything about logic like you claim to you would understand it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said "logic" is your standard and I challenged you by reminding you that it is logically impossible to break the inevitable "is/ought" gap when speaking about morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The unbreakable "is/ought" gap is a logical fact that I have presented to you. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't even be talking about logic because you clearly have no background in the field.

You said "logic" is your standard and I challenged you by reminding you that it is logically impossible to break the inevitable "is/ought" gap when speaking about morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For something that is claimed to be "impossible", I am strangely enough able to find enough critics who disagree with that opinion and who raise some interesting possible fallacious presumptions in the arguement that points out that it is "impossible" per definition. Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing the is/ought "problem", but I think this guy here summarizes my stance on it very well if you want to know my stance anyway. It also explains the standard more or less that you want to hear so gladly.

And so we're back to: "God did it!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, actually, the Simpsons (already) did it.

 

You said "logic" is your standard and I challenged you by reminding you that it is logically impossible to break the inevitable "is/ought" gap when speaking about morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For something that is claimed to be "impossible", I am strangely enough able to find enough critics who disagree with that opinion and who raise some interesting possible fallacious presumptions in the arguement that points out that it is "impossible" per definition. Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing the is/ought "problem", but I think this guy here summarizes my stance on it very well if you want to know my stance anyway. It also explains the standard more or less that you want to hear so gladly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can't explain your own theory in this debate, then walk yourself out of it.

If you can't explain your own theory in this debate, then walk yourself out of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are the one comming up with the is/ought cap as "impossible to overcome" yourself, so I believe I am certainly allowed to defend myself by highlighting that the "impossible" part is not true, considering it is based on certain assumptions. I didn't see you bring the evidence for the attack on is/ought impossibility so I am certainly allowed to quote someone else's theory too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing about everything, including "my definition" of arrogance which was just fine, the is/ought cap impossibility which is not as impossible as you say it is and now saying that I am hiding behind someone else's theory, while you were the first to mention the is/ought impossibility without arguing about the reasonability of it in the first place. :roll: Nah I got nothing to argue about with you anymore.

You are the one comming up with the is/ought cap as "impossible to overcome" yourself, so I believe I am certainly allowed to defend myself by highlighting that the "impossible" part is not true, considering it is based on certain assumptions. I didn't see you bring the evidence for the attack on is/ought impossibility so I am certainly allowed to quote someone else's theory too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article was fallacious because the line about "direct reasoning" - which is the foundation of his entire point - does not offer any logic to it, which counters his entire point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will back down from this argument if you can present me with one moral thought that comes from only logic. However, my guess is you will avoid the question entirely because it is impossible to do such a thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason I have not explained why it is impossible is because you constantly avoid giving me any moral situation where you can solve it with only logic. If you gave me such a situation, I would have the resources to explain to you why the is/ought gap makes it impossible. You searching for arguments against the is/ought gap on Google doesn't mean you're presenting me with a refutation of it - that article was terribly written.

 

You are the one comming up with the is/ought cap as "impossible to overcome" yourself, so I believe I am certainly allowed to defend myself by highlighting that the "impossible" part is not true, considering it is based on certain assumptions. I didn't see you bring the evidence for the attack on is/ought impossibility so I am certainly allowed to quote someone else's theory too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article was fallacious because the line about "direct reasoning" - which is the foundation of his entire point - does not offer any logic to it, which counters his entire point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will back down from this argument if you can present me with one moral thought that comes from only logic. However, my guess is you will avoid the question entirely because it is impossible to do such a thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason I have not explained why it is impossible is because you constantly avoid giving me any moral situation where you can solve it with only logic. If you gave me such a situation, I would have the resources to explain to you why the is/ought gap makes it impossible. You searching for arguments against the is/ought gap on Google doesn't mean you're presenting me with a refutation of it - that article was terribly written.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can easily do that. You can easily, logically think why something would be wrong to do. Stealing is wrong because when you take something from a store, they're losing revenue. If you steal from a friend, they will be sad/angry and if they find out it was you, your friendship would be over. Killing is wrong because, as I've said 100 times, when you kill someone, they're no longer there anymore. They are just GONE. Their family will be devestated, their friends will be hurt, and if you're caught, your life is over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I think "Should I steal this?" I think "No...I could get in trouble, and the store would be losing money.." not "No! God shalt smite me!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But of course, you'll just argue that God instilled these morals in me and I as raised on God's morals to think this and la-de-da. You just can't argue against the "God did it!" argument.

And if all the major countries around the world adopted these subjective morals, what then? They would be fairly common and deffinitly not worthless. Instead of a god instiling morals it would be the government(s).

 

 

 

Yes, which is why I added the word "fairly" to my post. I'm saying that our opinions and logic can create subjective morals that are very valuable to the human race but we can never know that these morals are true; they're still subjective, no matter how many people agree about them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A moral composed solely of subjective morals is still a subjective moral.

 

You are the one comming up with the is/ought cap as "impossible to overcome" yourself, so I believe I am certainly allowed to defend myself by highlighting that the "impossible" part is not true, considering it is based on certain assumptions. I didn't see you bring the evidence for the attack on is/ought impossibility so I am certainly allowed to quote someone else's theory too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article was fallacious because the line about "direct reasoning" - which is the foundation of his entire point - does not offer any logic to it, which counters his entire point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will back down from this argument if you can present me with one moral thought that comes from only logic. However, my guess is you will avoid the question entirely because it is impossible to do such a thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason I have not explained why it is impossible is because you constantly avoid giving me any moral situation where you can solve it with only logic. If you gave me such a situation, I would have the resources to explain to you why the is/ought gap makes it impossible. You searching for arguments against the is/ought gap on Google doesn't mean you're presenting me with a refutation of it - that article was terribly written.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impossible? Let me give it a shot. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is wrong to kill others because we, and indeed every species on the planet, strives for survival. Biological fact number 1. Therefore, it is illogical to kill others of the same species as it counters this survival. if we are all dead, then there is no point to anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think? Nitpick away.

Impossible? Let me give it a shot. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is wrong to kill others because we, and indeed every species on the planet, strives for survival. Biological fact number 1. Therefore, it is illogical to kill others of the same species as it counters this survival. if we are all dead, then there is no point to anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think? Nitpick away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are two problems with this. The first problem I will address explains the problem of the is/ought gap - the second problem is a symptom of crossing the is/ought gap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem 1: All you did was explain why it is illogical to kill other people if we want to survive. When we talk about morality, we are talking about "right" and "wrong," - "good" and "bad." You have no proven your major assumption in this point to be logically true, and that is that our survival "right," or "good," and therefore actions that promote are survival are moral.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is a fact that species strive for survival, but it is not a fact that this basic instinct is a good thing. You are making an assumption about the basis of your morality, and then logically proving other events to be moral. I want you to define "good" and therefore, "moral" without any assumptions - entirely based on logic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hint: It can't be done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem 2: The second problem with your scenario is a symptom of breaking the is/ought gap. In an attempt to logically define good, you assumed that any natural and biological trait is a good thing. Because of that assumption, you have now defined pedophilia to be a moral act. Do you agree?

Well, the Bible doesn't say pedophilia is bad, soooo...According to you guys...

 

Impossible? Let me give it a shot. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is wrong to kill others because we, and indeed every species on the planet, strives for survival. Biological fact number 1. Therefore, it is illogical to kill others of the same species as it counters this survival. if we are all dead, then there is no point to anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think? Nitpick away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are two problems with this. The first problem I will address explains the problem of the is/ought gap - the second problem is a symptom of crossing the is/ought gap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem 1: All you did was explain why it is illogical to kill other people if we want to survive. When we talk about morality, we are talking about "right" and "wrong," - "good" and "bad." You have no proven your major assumption in this point to be logically true, and that is that our survival "right," or "good," and therefore actions that promote are survival are moral.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is a fact that species strive for survival, but it is not a fact that this basic instinct is a good thing. You are making an assumption about the basis of your morality, and then logically proving other events to be moral. I want you to define "good" and therefore, "moral" without any assumptions - entirely based on logic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hint: It can't be done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem 2: The second problem with your scenario is a symptom of breaking the is/ought gap. In an attempt to logically define good, you assumed that any natural and biological trait is a good thing. Because of that assumption, you have now defined pedophilia to be a moral act. Do you agree?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll make no bones about the fact that my skills in philosophy and ethics aren't the best, but I'll continue to give it a shot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say that it is not factual what is good and what is bad. I agree, I suppose. Does anyone really decipher 'good' and 'bad' with facts, though? If you believe in absolute morality, there are good things and bad things. Can you prove this with facts? Well, not really, right? It is a fact that species strive for survival; it is an opinion, although highly objective, that survival is a good thing. Let's just say that person 'x' believes in an absolute model of morality which states that survival is, in fact, good. But is it really factual just because it sais so? I, or anyone, can propose that they have the true set of absolute morals claiming that a diety told them so or that they are the deity. Compare thier set of morals with, say, the christian set of absolute morals (if you believe there is such a thing). Whose is right? You can't tell because they are both claiming the same things i.e. that thier set is the one true set devulged by a higher power. 'Facts' don't come into morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.s. No, I don't agree that pedophelia is a moral act nor do I agree (which is what you're getting at, I think) that all things natural are good. Evolution isn't perfect; it does make mistakes and always will. Those mistakes will also always be weened out in subsequent generations.

What Locke doesn't seem to understand is that if we take the is/ought gap for given, our whole science seems worthless. I also like to point out that the article I referred to was not just written by some random idiot, but by an actual professor, but ofcourse Locke doesn't mind putting it down as "terribly written" anyway. I do wonder what Locke's own background is at this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, I can already see Locke go back in time when Newton 'discovered' the gravitational law, by observing an apple falling to the earth. I can imagine the discussion going something along these lines:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Newton: Aha, it must be the gravitional power of earth that creates a force in the apple that in turn gives the apple acceleration towards the earth.

 

 

 

Locke: You can't know that.

 

 

 

Newton: Yes I do, I observed this gravitional power long enough and it all fits each other so well.

 

 

 

Locke: It's impossible, you just can't pass the is/ought gap logically.

 

 

 

Newton: What?

We can define morality on utilitarian terms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example; Murder is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why: If murder was accepted as right universally the unhapiness it would cause would outweigh the pleasure of the murderers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Murder is wrong because it retains the greatest hapiness fo the greatest number.

What Locke doesn't seem to understand is that if we take the is/ought gap for given, our whole science seems worthless. I also like to point out that the article I referred to was not just written by some random idiot, but by an actual professor, but ofcourse Locke doesn't mind putting it down as "terribly written" anyway. I do wonder what Locke's own background is at this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know exactly who it was written as and it was terribly written. Is that an appeal to authority? I believe so. You do not that is a logical fallacy, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The is/ought gap is a MORAL dillema - it has nothing to do with science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, I can already see Locke go back in time when Newton 'discovered' the gravitational law, by observing an apple falling to the earth. I can imagine the discussion going something along these lines:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Newton: Aha, it must be the gravitional power of earth that creates a force in the apple that in turn gives the apple acceleration towards the earth.

 

 

 

Locke: You can't know that.

 

 

 

Newton: Yes I do, I observed this gravitional power long enough and it all fits each other so well.

 

 

 

Locke: It's impossible, you just can't pass the is/ought gap logically.

 

 

 

Newton: What?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science has nothing to do with morality and therefore it has nothing to do with the is/ought gap. Those are only is statements, they are not ought statements. You clearly don't understand the concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you honestly believe what you just wrote, then the reason you are arguing with me is because you don't understand what the is/ought gap is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stuff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly! That is the entire point. Morality cannot be based on logical proofs - there absolutely has to be a point of faith involved if you are going to suggest absolute morality. That point comes from your very first premise - where you decide what good is. Then every other moral action can logically be deduced from that, but you have to make the primary assumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The is/ought gap is best explained like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You cannot move from an "is" statement to an "ought" statement without making an assumption. Meaning, no factual observation can ever cause a logical conclusion towards morality - or a "should" statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No matter how many observations I make about survival, about people being sad when you steal from them, or anything like that - there is no logical step between those "is" statements and me saying what you "ought" to do. In absolute morality, there has to be a primary assumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Duke_Freedom doesn't understand in that article is the primary assumption that was made. The philosopher writing that claims that he uses "direct reason" to decide that murder is wrong - and THEN he logically shows different moral arguments using deductive reasoning. However, he never logically shows WHY direct reasoning tells him murder is wrong, he merely states it. (That is it is terribly written Duke).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Warrior, you actually do agree with me now? That when you have absolute morality you absolutely have to make at least one assumption to decide what good is (which can be based on facts, but not necessarily concluded from them) and then all forms of morality can be logically proven from that. Without at least one assumption though, an "ought" statement can never logically come from an "is" statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Duke: You have still failed to show me an example of a logical construction of a moral statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We can define morality on utilitarian terms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example; Murder is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why: If murder was accepted as right universally the unhapiness it would cause would outweigh the pleasure of the murderers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Murder is wrong because it retains the greatest hapiness fo the greatest number.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right. But there is still an assumption there (and I'm sure you're willing to admit it). That is, utilitarianism is best, or right, or good - or however you want to say it. After that initial assumption about utilitarianism, you can logically show the morality of any situation - but you need that assumption about utilitarianism first. Which is what Duke_Freedom doesn't understand.

However, he never logically shows WHY direct reasoning tells him murder is wrong, he merely states it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guess what, that was never the point of his article anyway. The point of his article was showing that there is a basic assumption that does not necessarily needs to be true and, considering the is/ought problem is a logical problem (I don't read the word morality in the word logical anywhere, do you?) it also has other consequences and yes also to science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In absolute morality, there has to be a primary assumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway I see you make an interesting statement here though, considering this whole debate started because I disagreed with the god = absolute morality and the not god = not absolute morality statements and called insane arrogant for stating that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right now, it seems you have adapted it to assumption = absolute morality, which I can, for simplicity, agree with for now. Keep in mind that assumption = absolute morality is something completely different then god = absolute morality and not god = not absolute morality.

There are two assumptions made by people who claim God = absolute morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God exists.

 

 

 

God's laws are moral.

There are two assumptions made by people who claim God = absolute morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God exists.

 

 

 

God's laws are moral.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly my point and it also points out that not god = not absolute morality is a baseless statement.

And even God = Absolute Morality is assumption.

Guess what, that was never the point of his article anyway. The point of his article was showing that there is a basic assumption that does not necessarily needs to be true and, considering the is/ought problem is a logical problem (I don't read the word morality in the word logical anywhere, do you?) it also has other consequences and yes also to science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's entirely the point of the article. I guess what you don't understand is that the "is/ought" gap is a logical fallacy ABOUT morality. An "is" statement is a logical statement - but an "ought" statement is a moral statement. The problem is that you cannot go solely from an "is" statement to an "ought" statement purely by logic. You have to make an assumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You still don't seem to understand what the is/ought gap really is. It is the problem between connecting logic with morality without an assumption. If you claim you can make absolute moral statements purely from logic, then you are failing to see your basic assumptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, you still have failed to give me any one moral situation where logic is your sole tool for explaining absolute morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway I see you make an interesting statement here though, considering this whole debate started because I disagreed with the god = absolute morality and the not god = not absolute morality statements and called insane arrogant for stating that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This debate stems from you telling me that logic is your basis for absolute morality and me asking you to give me a moral situation where you can explain this. Unfortunately, you have not done such a thing because it is impossible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right now, it seems you have adapted it to assumption = absolute morality, which I can, for simplicity, agree with for now. Keep in mind that assumption = absolute morality is something completely different then god = absolute morality and not god = not absolute morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not adapating anything because it was not my point to begin with. I want to know your standard of absolute morality. You tell me it is logic. I want to know how you can use logic to determine morality. You refuse to explain it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And even God = Absolute Morality is assumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. You would agree with my point then? That when someone is talking about moral actions, there has to be 1 fundamental axiomatic assumption that is made, and all other points come from the logical use of that assumption.