pr126 wrote:If morality comes from a god then we must accept that there are different gods with different, sometime opposing moralities.
I think monotheism as a concept / idea is illogical, contradictory, divisive.
skynightblaze wrote:I would like to give another example here. We see plenty of examples of people being killed in accidents. Many a time, the fault lies with the other person. The other person is drunk or he falls asleep while driving and as a result, he rams into someone else car. That someone else gets killed for no fault of his. Where is the logic here? Nevertheless, this is reality even though illogical.
manfred wrote:skynightblaze wrote:I would like to give another example here. We see plenty of examples of people being killed in accidents. Many a time, the fault lies with the other person. The other person is drunk or he falls asleep while driving and as a result, he rams into someone else car. That someone else gets killed for no fault of his. Where is the logic here? Nevertheless, this is reality even though illogical.
Hi, I am not sure what you are telling us here. Obviously if someone gets behind the wheel of a car drunk he is responsible for the consequences. If i make myself deliberately unable to function properly, how can that be an excuse?
The immoral act started by getting drunk and not ensuring that a sober person takes you home.
skynightblaze wrote:When I said something should stand on its own feet, I meant that it should stand on basis of logic alone. You don't need any other yardstick such as God or else the statement is simply not objective.
Now I have a question. If you agree that point of reference has to depend on logic and not on metaphysical references then why did you agree with Manfred’s analysis of what Craig meant to say?
skynightblaze wrote:Well then the next question for Craig is- How does he know whatever is said in the bible is objective? God says so or bible says so is circular reasoning and hence not acceptable. There must be a mechanism for us to determine if bible is objective or not or else bible can be dismissed.
skynightblaze wrote:This is not making any sense and I don’t think I am misunderstanding Craig’s argument. Craig clearly says objective morality does not exist without God. I think you are trying to say that recognizing moral values becomes tough because you have no standard to measure against if we don’t have God. However, that is not what Craig says. He denies their existence altogether. Anyway, the point here I want to make was – God is not a proven concept and hence the reference point selected itself begs the question of proof. So how can an argument be correct if its based on an unproven concept?
William Lane Craig wrote:The question before us this evening, then, is, “what is the best foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties? What grounds them? What makes certain actions objectively good or evil, right or wrong?” In tonight’s debate I’m going to defend two basic contentions:
1. If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
2. If God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
Now notice that these are conditional claims. I shall not be arguing tonight that God exists. Maybe Dr. Harris is right that atheism is true. That wouldn’t affect the truth of my two contentions. All that would follow is that objective moral values and duties would, then, contrary to Dr. Harris, not exist.
skynightblaze wrote:Cognitive dissonance is a real phenomenon. We know something is wrong and yet we end up doing exactly the same. Is our behaviour logical especially when we know we are doing something wrong? Ofcourse not! Cognitive dissonance is a classic case of our illogical behaviour but its for real as empirical evidence shows.
skynightblaze wrote:Lets consider another example- Majority of men if given a choice between a attractive girl and bad looking chick would pick the good looking girl as a mate or life partner. The reality here is – its illogical to decide about your life partner solely basis of looks. The bad looking may be a gold mine and the good looking girl might be a bitch! So, are the actions of men logical? Ofcourse not! By evolution men are hardwired to go for visual beauty. This means men take the illogical decisions but at the same time, it’s the reality. We cannot deny reality just because it appears illogical.
skynightblaze wrote:Assume a person tells you that you believe in democracy just because you were born in a democratic country. Craig accuses such a person of genetic fallacy because being born into democratic nation (past or history) does not necessarily imply that democracy is wrong (present belief). He asks what if democracy is really right? That’s a fair point but an equally fair question is – What if democracy is really wrong and you believe in it just because you were born into it? So both the possibilities have an equal chance. Craig conveniently ignores the second possibility and accuses the opponents of genetic fallacy. Its quite possible that the past or history directly affects your present views.
skynightblaze wrote:I don’t agree with the conclusion of yours ( see below) however even if we go with your reasoning there is still a problem. If the conclusion from premise 1 can swing anyway i.e. human moral worth can be objective or subjective then it opens a worm of cans. You are contradicting yourself in that case because you were sure earlier that humans have moral worth and its objective and now you are admitting that its possible that it can be subjective.
skynightblaze wrote:Anyway, I will make a case for it being subjective. When you say that a statement can be possibly objective, you should be able to prove that there exists at least a chance even if slim for it to be objective. I on the other hand, can show that there is no chance of it being objective. Here is how..
We all believe that killing is bad(at least majority of human race). We cry foul if a terrorists blows up a plane. We see condemnations pouring from all parts of the world. We are killing millions of animals daily. How many people condemn this? How many of us raise voices ? Infact we see people saying its how nature works and giving all sorts of justifications . So we have a different view when it comes to animals and we think of all human rights in the world when our own ass is on the stove. How can there be a chance of this view being objective when we can maintain 2 different standards?
Its obvious our views are subjective but at the same time, we all believe in objective moral values. Therefore there is a contradiction in our views which I think I cannot resolve. I will attribute it to evolution.
Equestrian wrote:We value human life and the life of animals equally
Neither Jews nor Christians believe they are somehow a superior class of humans as you suggest. Muslims, perhaps. And being "pious" is a term used to describe INDIVIDUALS and their personal devotion to religious prayer and conduct.
Next, for a Christian, religion is mostly defined by love, not fear. If you ask Muslims, there you do find fear.
Islam is different. The value of human life in Islam is determined by gender, religion and skin colour, with a white male Muslim at the top of the list, and a brown Hindu woman at the bottom.
Equestrian wrote:Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Nosuperstition wrote:Equestrian wrote:Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Well per details given at infinityfoundation,according to Muslim travellers and historians of India,or atleast according to one documentor of Hindu society before Islam arrived,Hindu debtors were quite honest and repaid back their debts to their debtors.So muslim travellers considered it an objectively moral duty or value to pay off one's debts.
Some also observed that in one particular area,both the nobles and the commoners ate the same kind of finest food.Perhaps they believed in the religious/political/secular text of Neeti Saaram or essense of honesty that one should not hold people in debt traps forever.
Now when Europeans like Jim Corbett arrived in British India,he saw that illiterate bonded labourers like Budhia were being exploited for generations and generations in the guise of bonded labour with them not knowing what exponential component interest is being charged for the loans taken by their ancestors.He called the money-lender,threatened him and paid the due amount and freed Budhia.This story is in the syllabus of my 7th standard English non-detail text.Obviously paying the due amount is still considered an objectively moral value and duty even by the enlightened British.
Now as far as I am concerned,it is objectively immoral to enslave those peasants/their family members when they are not in a condition to pay off debts which will result in a debt trap.They can pay off at a later date when they are well-off.What do your objective moral values and duties tell you regarding this aspect of day-to-day life?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests