Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[TRANSPONDER]

The problem keeps recurring and i just posted on it with our pal 1213 - if works is all that counts, religion is not necessary and Works is better without Faith in the bribe and threat of heaven and hell.

But if Faith (belief in God) is what counts, then works are just a practical demonstration of Faith, and works without Faith, or the correct Faith will not save.

Where it manifests here is in the idea that for morality to be effective, a god must give it to us. If, like 2 + 2 = 4 it is an objective fact whether a god said so or not.

Morality exists and is valid without a god's say - so to make it valid (which isn't quite the same as 'objectively true'). and if in fact better without a doctrine and doigma, because morality can move on from accepting social advances, like slavery, obviously, which leaves Bible apologists either having to excuse a god who had to tolerate his Righteous people doing slavery as they just wouldn't accept His saying 'Don't own people as property', or pretending it isn't actually endorsing slavery, which it absoluitely is and we get the diverting spectacle of the 'Ghost Bible' which in the one the apologists has in their head and says what they want, not what is actually in the printed version.

That's apart from those who find themselves painted into a logical corner and have to approve or accept some kind of slaverybecause the only escape is to accept that Biblical morality is inferior to human, which of course we - yall use to judge the deeds in the bible and either approve or excuse them.

[1213]

The problem keeps recurring and i just posted on it with our pal 1213 - if works is all that counts, religion is not necessary and Works is better without Faith in the bribe and threat of heaven and hell.

I don't think religion is necessary. Being righteous is necessary, if one wants to get into eternal life, because it is promised only for righteous. And, if one is righteous, it will come visible in his actions, which faith also is.

But if Faith (belief in God) is what counts, then works are just a practical demonstration of Faith, and works without Faith, or the correct Faith will not save.

If one shows correct work, he also shows correct faith.

Morality exists and is valid without a god's say....

Any proof for that?

[TRANSPONDER]

The problem keeps recurring and i just posted on it with our pal 1213 - if works is all that counts, religion is not necessary and Works is better without Faith in the bribe and threat of heaven and hell.

I don't think religion is necessary. Being righteous is necessary, if one wants to get into eternal life, because it is promised only for righteous. And, if one is righteous, it will come visible in his actions, which faith also is.

But if Faith (belief in God) is what counts, then works are just a practical demonstration of Faith, and works without Faith, or the correct Faith will not save.

If one shows correct work, he also shows correct faith.

Morality exists and is valid without a god's say....

Any proof for that?

I think so. Indeed, it is implicit in arguments I have made.

If Morality is just what a god says, it is is open to question as the god's opinion or orders at least, not an innate (objective) rightness.

If morality exists as an objective thing no matter what a god says, then an objective morality would not be a god's opinion.

At best, the believer could only argue that the god told us about morality rather than leave us to work it out. But there is the evidence, if not proof - the morality has outstripped Bible morality and a god teaching morality should have simply said 'no slavery' because we now (apart from some people whom religion has stripped of humanity) know that slavery is wrong.

This shows that the Bible was not God's ideas but the best morality of the humans of the time.

And, no; it does not follow that correct work shows correct Faith - or if it did, God, Jesus, religion and the Bible would not be needed, unless the work required the faith first. That has been my argument all along.

[1213]

...At best, the believer could only argue that the god told us about morality rather than leave us to work it out. But there is the evidence, if not proof - the morality has outstripped Bible morality and a god teaching morality should have simply said 'no slavery' because we now (apart from some people whom religion has stripped of humanity) know that slavery is wrong.

If slavery is wrong, why are people still forced to pay taxes?

This shows that the Bible was not God's ideas but the best morality of the humans of the time.

And, no; it does not follow that correct work shows correct Faith - or if it did, God, Jesus, religion and the Bible would not be needed, unless the work required the faith first. That has been my argument all along.

I think God is needed, because He has given the teachings that are important and He also gives life.

I think Jesus is needed, because through him the teachings were given that can help many to find life.

First thing required is righteousness, that causes the right actions and makes person faithful to God. And the words of Jesus can help one to become righteous, which is why Jesus is important.

[TRANSPONDER]

...At best, the believer could only argue that the god told us about morality rather than leave us to work it out. But there is the evidence, if not proof - the morality has outstripped Bible morality and a god teaching morality should have simply said 'no slavery' because we now (apart from some people whom religion has stripped of humanity) know that slavery is wrong.

If slavery is wrong, why are people still forced to pay taxes?

This shows that the Bible was not God's ideas but the best morality of the humans of the time.

And, no; it does not follow that correct work shows correct Faith - or if it did, God, Jesus, religion and the Bible would not be needed, unless the work required the faith first. That has been my argument all along.

I think God is needed, because He has given the teachings that are important and He also gives life.

I think Jesus is needed, because through him the teachings were given that can help many to find life.

First thing required is righteousness, that causes the right actions and makes person faithful to God. And the words of Jesus can help one to become righteous, which is why Jesus is important.

Because paying taxes is just life; we have to either survive ourselves or use the cosion of society to have an easier life, and we pay for that.

This is nothing like owning another human being as property. Who taught you this idea that taxes excuses slavery?And explain to me why, if Christianity teaches this, I should not regard Christianity with horror and disgust?

Your reasons for God and Jesus being important are totally invalid; IF one does not believe the Bible.

[The Tanager]

It is absolutely circular because it comes out as ' Human morality is Objective - because it was goven by God. We know it was given by God, so it is objective.

It only comes out that way if one misunderstands it. The above is clearly a misunderstanding because Ive stated on multiple occasions that only some versions of theism would lead to moral objectivism.

Of course, you put it as a hypothetical which gets you out of the circular claim,

Putting something as a hypothetical doesnt get you out of a circular argument.

So If God did not give human morals (and there is no good reason to think that any god dictated morality) then there is no reason to see human morality as objective, any more than dictated by evolved instinctive preferences

Ive been saying this all along. If naturalism is true, then human morality is not objective. We agree.

[The Tanager]

You haven't established either of these. First, if you think that theism implies either an objective nature or purpose for humanity, then that's already a part of your premise and the first huge part of your circular argument.

If arguments are an analysis of what follows from X being true. Thats not circularity.

Second, you haven't defined "purpose" well enough, so for your argument, I'm not sure what "purpose" you're claiming that naturalism doesn't provide. Things like objective senses of pleasure and pain imply that human beings have something driving us toward particular actions. Is this different than your "purpose?"

A purpose is an intention, an aim, a plan, a design. Nature doesnt create humans in order for them to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Nature tells us we are creatures that experience pleasure and pain, but it doesnt plan which ones we should pursue and avoid.

We're defining the "ought." States involving pleasure and pain, for example, are the "is." If maximizing those are the "ought," then human beings can define the rules, but still have the overall framework be considered philosophically objective.

We are analyzing if nature can tell us that maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain/harm is the ought. How does the above picture allow the overall framework to be philosophically objective?

Then you and I aren't using the word "objective" in the same way. Objective morality must be reflected in reality in the same way that objective mathematics is. The math equation "2+2=4" is objectively true and is reflected in reality: two apples plus two apples can be measured to be four apples.

Physical facts are reflected in reality in a different way than mathematical facts are. Does that mean only one of those can be truly objective? No.

If my proposed moral framework is based on maximum overall pleasure, though, that might in principle be measurable (maybe with an fMRI of everyone involved?).

Why think being measurable is the key? What we are analyzing, with the objective/subjective question in its moral context, is why your proposed moral framework should be the one rather than someone elses.

I still think that you're trying to define "objective" in such a way that it requires a god in the form of a nonhuman agent that can arbitrate between moral judgements. This is the reason for your "purpose" prong of your morality and what lies behind the circular argument.

How? Objective simply means independent of the opinions of the agents under consideration. This neither says nor implies anything about requiring God. Thus, it is not the reason for the purpose prong and isnt circular.

You're just adding an extra step. If the purpose is itself objective, you should be able to identify it in reality whether or not it was defined by God in the first place.

You are confusing epistemology with ontology here. Being able to identify an objective purpose is a question of knowing, not the ontological question of why the purpose is objective. Im talking about Gods role in the ontological question.

As long as you're still claiming that such "nature and purpose" can't be defined without somehow referring to the fiat of God, then the argument is circular.

Im not saying it cant be defined without reference to God; Ive been asking everyone to show how nature can give purpose. Naturalism, however, doesnt believe nature gives purpose.

Im also not saying that objectivity can only be had with "nature and purpose"; Ive been asking everyone to show that there is another way. Naturalists, however, dont give another way.

[The Tanager]

The philosophical concept of "objectivity" only applies to truths about reality that exist independently of any agent's personal judgements, biases, or opinions. Conversely, the philosophical concept of "subjectivity" applies to relative truths that are necessarily derived from an agent's personal judgements, biases, or opinions.

No, that is not how it has traditionally been used in the moral discussion. When talking about human morality, objectivity applies to truths about reality that exist independently of human judgments, biases, or opinions. People dont call sharks immoral for forcibly copulating. Morality is not objective in that way.

Because the concept of "purpose" in the context of your argument necessarily entails a god's (i.e., an agent's) personal judgement, bias, or opinion about how humans ought to live, it is inherently subjective.

No, purpose does not entail God. Its simply having intention, a plan, etc. That neither says nor implies anything about God.

Accordingly, if theism were true, it would be the objective reality that a god had an originally intended purpose in mind for humanity, but the specified purpose itself would be a subjective notion. There is no deriving an "ought" from an "is" under those circumstances.

The creator of the computer had a subjective notion, but by creating the computer gave the computer an objective purpose. That is one way an is (the act of creating) can provide an ought.

Even if "objective purpose" was a coherent concept, the argument still commits the tautological definition fallacy. You've defined objective morality (Y) to be the combination of objective purpose (A) and objective nature (B). Therefore, given this proprietary definition, it is merely a tautology to propose that a god creating humans with the combination (X) of an objective purpose (A) and an objective nature (B) would produce an objective morality (Y) if theism is true:

[(X = A+B) (A+B = Y)] (X = Y) or (A+B = A+B)

This tautology is fallacious because the premise that claims humans can have an objective purpose (A) under theism is asserted but not logically justified in the argument.

I have not defined objective morality as the combination of purpose and nature. I have said that is ONE way to get objective morality (defined separately). Ive asked for anyone to give a different way, if they are aware of it. Please do.

[1213]

Because paying taxes is just life; we have to either survive ourselves or use the cosion of society to have an easier life, and we pay for that.

Again you sound like common slave owner. They could also say: "Having slaves is just life; we have to either survive ourselves or use slaves to have an easier life, and we pay for that".

If person is forced to pay taxes, it means the person must work for the one who demands it, and it is no different from ancient slavery, except that the ancient owner probably took better care of his slaves generally, at least if went by Bible rules.

[bluegreenearth]

The philosophical concept of "objectivity" only applies to truths about reality that exist independently of any agent's personal judgements, biases, or opinions. Conversely, the philosophical concept of "subjectivity" applies to relative truths that are necessarily derived from an agent's personal judgements, biases, or opinions.

No, that is not how it has traditionally been used in the moral discussion. When talking about human morality, objectivity applies to truths about reality that exist independently of human judgments, biases, or opinions. People dont call sharks immoral for forcibly copulating. Morality is not objective in that way.

If it is true for humans but not for sharks, then it is a relative truth. Subjectivity applies to relative truths.

Because the concept of "purpose" in the context of your argument necessarily entails a god's (i.e., an agent's) personal judgement, bias, or opinion about how humans ought to live, it is inherently subjective.

No, purpose does not entail God. Its simply having intention, a plan, etc. That neither says nor implies anything about God.

Note the entailment is not a god but an agent's "personal judgement, bias, or opinion." Whether it is from a god or any other moral agent is not relevant to the point.

Accordingly, if theism were true, it would be the objective reality that a god had an originally intended purpose in mind for humanity, but the specified purpose itself would be a subjective notion. There is no deriving an "ought" from an "is" under those circumstances.

The creator of the computer had a subjective notion, but by creating the computer gave the computer an objective purpose. That is one way an is (the act of creating) can provide an ought.

You are attempting to define "objective purpose" into existence. It doesn't logically follow that a creator's originally intended purpose for the creation means everyone else ought to have the same purpose in mind for the creation.

Even if "objective purpose" was a coherent concept, the argument still commits the tautological definition fallacy. You've defined objective morality (Y) to be the combination of objective purpose (A) and objective nature (B). Therefore, given this proprietary definition, it is merely a tautology to propose that a god creating humans with the combination (X) of an objective purpose (A) and an objective nature (B) would produce an objective morality (Y) if theism is true:

[(X = A+B) (A+B = Y)] (X = Y) or (A+B = A+B)

This tautology is fallacious because the premise that claims humans can have an objective purpose (A) under theism is asserted but not logically justified in the argument.

I have not defined objective morality as the combination of purpose and nature. I have said that is ONE way to get objective morality (defined separately). Ive asked for anyone to give a different way, if they are aware of it. Please do.

The response above does not address the tautological definition fallacy in your argument for objective morality, and I've not claimed morality is objective.