WLC and the moral argument

[Nicki]

I watched a good video recently of William Lane Craig speaking on the case for Christian theism. He mentioned the difference between moral ontology and epistemology, which has been explained on here before in a way I found confusing - that epistemology refers to what is right and wrong, while ontology means that there is right and wrong. I took that to mean that what's actually right and wrong can change. Craig said epistemology refers to how we know what's right and wrong, and that it's not always easy to know what our moral duties are. It seemed to answer the question of how people's moral values can differ - sometimes they get it wrong.

Having said that, I don't find the moral argument for God very convincing. To me seems too easy to be able to say that morals would have developed because it was beneficial for people (or members of a lot of animal species, for that matter) to live in groups, and that those individuals who tended more towards antisocial, selfish behaviour would have been excluded from their group and have had a lower chance of survival than those who treated others well and made themselves popular.

For one to discuss what IS right and wrong ( subjective view), we must first accept that there IS Right and wrong ( Objective view).
This is a "no-brainer" and basic Philosophy 101.
Either a person accepts this or they don't understand the difference and if they don't understand it, don't bother debating it.

But epistemology is about how we know things, isn't it? (Apparently there are atheists calling themselves street epistemologists, who will question Christians about their beliefs and keep saying 'How do you know that?', trying to get them to doubt.) It seemed a lot clearer to me when WLC said moral epistemology's about how we know what's right and wrong. When it was phrased as 'what is right and wrong' the implication seemed to be that moral standards can actually vary, which didn't seem quite right to me. So Kenny, the reason people in different times and places can have different moral values is that sometimes they get it wrong.

[Kenny]

So Kenny, the reason people in different times and places can have different moral values is that sometimes they get it wrong.

Is it fair to say only people who follow instructions of your God, live according to the morals of your culture, and who live in your current life time get it right? Because people who lived many years ago, when the moral culture was different, and those who will live in the future when the moral culture will continue to change from what it is now; all of those people will get it wrong, is that what you are saying?

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
For one to discuss what IS right and wrong ( subjective view), we must first accept that there IS Right and wrong ( Objective view).

I'm not sure you have that correct. You may want to check your sources, and reword that.

I think you may mean that one has to recognize that morals exist(ontology), before logically being able to discuss what is right or wrong(epistemology).

Paul,

You may be conflating objective morality, and ontology.

You feel that you can discuss what is viewed as right and wrong WITHOUT the agreement that there IS a right and wrong?

[PaulSacramento]

I watched a good video recently of William Lane Craig speaking on the case for Christian theism. He mentioned the difference between moral ontology and epistemology, which has been explained on here before in a way I found confusing - that epistemology refers to what is right and wrong, while ontology means that there is right and wrong. I took that to mean that what's actually right and wrong can change. Craig said epistemology refers to how we know what's right and wrong, and that it's not always easy to know what our moral duties are. It seemed to answer the question of how people's moral values can differ - sometimes they get it wrong.

Having said that, I don't find the moral argument for God very convincing. To me seems too easy to be able to say that morals would have developed because it was beneficial for people (or members of a lot of animal species, for that matter) to live in groups, and that those individuals who tended more towards antisocial, selfish behaviour would have been excluded from their group and have had a lower chance of survival than those who treated others well and made themselves popular.

For one to discuss what IS right and wrong ( subjective view), we must first accept that there IS Right and wrong ( Objective view).
This is a "no-brainer" and basic Philosophy 101.
Either a person accepts this or they don't understand the difference and if they don't understand it, don't bother debating it.

People who do not believe the Objective view, debate the subjective view all the time. Agree or not, those conversations do take place

Yes, they debate the subjective view of something they don't believe exists.
I have no idea WHY, but some do.

Imagine debating the characters of a story that doesn't exist ? was never written ?

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
For one to discuss what IS right and wrong ( subjective view), we must first accept that there IS Right and wrong ( Objective view).

I'm not sure you have that correct. You may want to check your sources, and reword that.

I think you may mean that one has to recognize that morals exist(ontology), before logically being able to discuss what is right or wrong(epistemology).

Paul,

You may be conflating objective morality, and ontology.

You feel that you can discuss what is viewed as right and wrong WITHOUT the agreement that there IS a right and wrong?

No, of course not. But we don't need to agree that morality is objective, to discuss what is viewed as right or wrong.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
For one to discuss what IS right and wrong ( subjective view), we must first accept that there IS Right and wrong ( Objective view).

I'm not sure you have that correct. You may want to check your sources, and reword that.

I think you may mean that one has to recognize that morals exist(ontology), before logically being able to discuss what is right or wrong(epistemology).

Paul,

You may be conflating objective morality, and ontology.

You feel that you can discuss what is viewed as right and wrong WITHOUT the agreement that there IS a right and wrong?

No, of course not. But we don't need to agree that morality is objective, to discuss what is viewed as right or wrong.

Sure, you don't have to agree that morality is objective, just as you don't have to agree that things that come into being require a cause to discuss what causes them, BUT good luck.

[Kenny]

I watched a good video recently of William Lane Craig speaking on the case for Christian theism. He mentioned the difference between moral ontology and epistemology, which has been explained on here before in a way I found confusing - that epistemology refers to what is right and wrong, while ontology means that there is right and wrong. I took that to mean that what's actually right and wrong can change. Craig said epistemology refers to how we know what's right and wrong, and that it's not always easy to know what our moral duties are. It seemed to answer the question of how people's moral values can differ - sometimes they get it wrong.

Having said that, I don't find the moral argument for God very convincing. To me seems too easy to be able to say that morals would have developed because it was beneficial for people (or members of a lot of animal species, for that matter) to live in groups, and that those individuals who tended more towards antisocial, selfish behaviour would have been excluded from their group and have had a lower chance of survival than those who treated others well and made themselves popular.

For one to discuss what IS right and wrong ( subjective view), we must first accept that there IS Right and wrong ( Objective view).
This is a "no-brainer" and basic Philosophy 101.
Either a person accepts this or they don't understand the difference and if they don't understand it, don't bother debating it.

People who do not believe the Objective view, debate the subjective view all the time. Agree or not, those conversations do take place

Yes, they debate the subjective view of something they don't believe exists.
I have no idea WHY, but some do.

Imagine debating the characters of a story that doesn't exist ? was never written ?

Evidently you don't know the difference between subjective vs objective. If you did, it would make a lot more sense to you.

[PaulSacramento]

Yeah, right.
Your comment speaks volumes Ken.
CONTEXT Ken.
Hence the analogy of a story.
That is why I have said to you, many times, you can NOT have the SUBjective of something without the OBJective of it.

[PaulSacramento]

kenny seems to be thinking of objective and subjective like this:
The difference between objective and subjective:
Subjective means something which does not show the clear picture or it is just a person's outlook or expression of opinion. An objective statement is based on facts and observations. On the other hand, a subjective statement relies on assumptions, beliefs, opinions and influenced by emotions and personal feelings.

Which is a BROAD GENERAL view and NOT applicable the moment you are addressing a specific subject, like morality in this case.

[RickD]

Paul,

You seem to be saying that we cannot discuss what is right, and what is wrong, unless we first acknowledge that things are in fact morally right or morally wrong. Which I agree with.

But, the issue is where morality comes from.

Someone like Kenny says that there is such a thing as morality, but it's not objective. Morality is in the human mind.

[Kenny]

PaulS wrote:
For one to discuss what IS right and wrong ( subjective view), we must first accept that there IS Right and wrong ( Objective view).

I'm not sure you have that correct. You may want to check your sources, and reword that.

I think you may mean that one has to recognize that morals exist(ontology), before logically being able to discuss what is right or wrong(epistemology).

Paul,

You may be conflating objective morality, and ontology.

You feel that you can discuss what is viewed as right and wrong WITHOUT the agreement that there IS a right and wrong?

No, of course not. But we don't need to agree that morality is objective, to discuss what is viewed as right or wrong.

Excellent point!

[Kenny]

Paul,

You seem to be saying that we cannot discuss what is right, and what is wrong, unless we first acknowledge that things are in fact morally right or morally wrong. Which I agree with.

But, the issue is where morality comes from.

Someone like Kenny says that there is such a thing as morality, but it's not objective. Morality is in the human mind.

Wow! It's like you took the words right out of my mouth!

[RickD]

Paul,

You seem to be saying that we cannot discuss what is right, and what is wrong, unless we first acknowledge that things are in fact morally right or morally wrong. Which I agree with.

But, the issue is where morality comes from.

Someone like Kenny says that there is such a thing as morality, but it's not objective. Morality is in the human mind.

Wow! It's like you took the words right out of my mouth!

Kenny,

What I've shown you there, is how someone can understand a differing point of view, and present that differing point of view, without arguing against a straw man. So that way, both sides know that the differing point of view is understood.

It's an amazing concept. You should try it sometime.

[Kenny]

Paul,

You seem to be saying that we cannot discuss what is right, and what is wrong, unless we first acknowledge that things are in fact morally right or morally wrong. Which I agree with.

But, the issue is where morality comes from.

Someone like Kenny says that there is such a thing as morality, but it's not objective. Morality is in the human mind.

Wow! It's like you took the words right out of my mouth!

Kenny,

What I've shown you there, is how someone can understand a differing point of view, and present that differing point of view, without arguing against a straw man. So that way, both sides know that the differing point of view is understood.

It's an amazing concept. You should try it sometime.

If I did that, I would just be preachin' to the Choir along with everyone else. There is no shortage of views here that are opposite of mine. There is a shortage of views like mine.

[RickD]

Paul,

You seem to be saying that we cannot discuss what is right, and what is wrong, unless we first acknowledge that things are in fact morally right or morally wrong. Which I agree with.

But, the issue is where morality comes from.

Someone like Kenny says that there is such a thing as morality, but it's not objective. Morality is in the human mind.

Wow! It's like you took the words right out of my mouth!

Kenny,

What I've shown you there, is how someone can understand a differing point of view, and present that differing point of view, without arguing against a straw man. So that way, both sides know that the differing point of view is understood.

It's an amazing concept. You should try it sometime.

If I did that, I would just be preachin' to the Choir along with everyone else. There is no shortage of views here that are opposite of mine. There is a shortage of views like mine.

Kenny,

I'm not saying you need to agree with someone else's argument. I'm saying that you should make it a point to understand it.