Actually there is a planet where animals are killing each other; Earth. I don't consider predator animals as evil because I don't see what other choice they have in order to eat and live.1over137 wrote:Suppose humans do not exist. Suppose there is one planet where animals are killing each other. Suppose there is another planet where animals are not killing each other. Is something good, is something wrong?
Kenny, I seriously doubt you are advocating that a self-defeating view "makes sense."Kenny wrote: No; it doesn't make sense to YOU, but we aren't talking about what make sense to you; we are talking about what make sense to ME! again..... why is it so difficult for you to understand that I could ground my morality in what makes sense to me?
Kenny, everyone has an opinion. What we are talking about is whether one's worldview is grounded. When you use the term 'value' in regards to a moral position, you appear to again smuggle in OM.Fair enough! But for someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of your supreme, transcendent, moral being; your view has no more value than mine; right?
Of course, do you? Because I've already shown where you smuggle in OM where it suits you. Like so many, you casually dismiss OM, and then seem to think that you yourself are a 'moral' person. Without realizing it, you benefit from the Christian ethic and how it promotes the notion of human value, justice, mercy, etc.Do you know the difference between “morality” and a simple claim about morality?
All reasonable people grasp the basics of OM. Please show me a society that thinks being stolen from is a good thing. Or one where injustice is considered good. This has already been asked and answered.No, but I eventually learned it. According to you not everybody understands objective morality and are left having to interpret it. If it were objective it would be obvious.
It tells me that you are not a reasonable person.No, it assumes if morality were objective, it would be agreed upon by reasonable people. The fact that it isn’t should tell you something
Ken, it's not my fault that the basic and obvious conclusion of OM is that is points to a transcendent moral law giver.Did you not define objective morality as a morality that transcends the opinion of humans? What else could you possibly be talking about if you aren’t talking about a God?
I approach this from a Thomistic view for the most part. Evil is not a thing, but is a privation. Therefore, your question doesn't really hold. In other words, I'm not going to adopt your presuppositions to defend my own position. Especially since I view your presuppositions as incorrect.So you tellin me if intelligent life didn’t exist; good and evil would still exist? Okay then I will ask you the same question I asked someone else; there is no intelligent life on the moon. Does evil exist on the moon?
Ken, you may not see it , but you are constructing an argument that doesn't have any validity because it is based on philosophical point that simply does NOT exist.Kenny wrote:Paulsacramento
You are confusing the ACT with WHO is doing the act, that is why you are confusing OBJECTIVE MORALITY ( There is such a thing as Good and Evil) With Subjective Morality ( What is Good and Evil).
Ken
No, I couldn’t care less who is doing the act; I’m saying without somebody doing the act; there is no act. Without an act there is no moral issue.
Paulsacramento
Infanticide was an example. You seem to be implying that for morals to exist, human life must exist, is that what you are saying?
Ken
Pretty much! I believe my exact words were “Good and Evil only exist in the context of intelligent beings. If intelligent beings didn’t exist; neither would Good and evil.
Paulsacramento
If good and evil did not exist, there would be NO subjective view of them.
Ken
Human actions is what exists. Good and evil are only a couple of the pelethora of lables we attach to human actions That's why (as I mentioned before) there is no evil on the moon; because there is no human action on the moon. Good and evil only exists in the context of human action.
Ken
Yes of course you are right in that regard, I mean, without intelligent life there is no math either.Kenny wrote:Paulsacramento
I think you are reading a little too far into this my friend! The only point I am trying to make is without intelligent life, there is no objective morality. That’s it! And it appears you agree with me.
Ken
Please Ken, spare us this nonsense.You aren’t going to answer my question; are you!
It doesn't appear that way. I've given you specific examples from your own comments. You're not doing well here Kenny.It only appears that way to you because you have a tendency to see Objective morality in places it doesn’t exist.
Great point. They have existed longer. In fact, i'd say you just again appealed to OM. Bravo!In order for an ethic to be considered “Christian” it could not have existed prior to Christianity. Human value, Justice, Mercy, etc existed long before your Christ, or your Christianity.
Surprise, surprise, Kenny just moved the goal post. Another text book logical fallacy.Sure! As soon as you show me a society where everybody agrees on moral issues and nothing is up for debate.
As I've already stated, I dare you to live that way. You don't. If you don't believe in either fine, but quick trespassing on those worldviews to support your own ethics.I am not troubled, and there is no fault! I am simply making the point that what you call “objective morality” is for those who believe in God! I believe in neither.
Yes, Kenny, that's it. Your question was so profound it brought 2,500 years of philosophy and natural theology crumbling.In other words; you aren’t going to answer my question. That’s okay; I’m sorta getting used to it
The equation 1+1=2 is made up of reprehensive tokens. It is those tokens that represent reality. With right and wrong, if there were no intelligent life to cause actions; right and wrong would be no more than a hypotheticalPaulSacramento wrote:Yes of course you are right in that regard, I mean, without intelligent life there is no math either.Kenny wrote:Paulsacramento
I think you are reading a little too far into this my friend! The only point I am trying to make is without intelligent life, there is no objective morality. That’s it! And it appears you agree with me.
Ken
BUT 1+1 would still be 2 and right and wrong would still exist and that is what I don't think you are grasping.
I think a better question is this, if humans ceased to exist, would the holocaust still be evil?Kenny wrote:The equation 1+1=2 is made up of reprehensive tokens. It is those tokens that represent reality. With right and wrong, if there were no intelligent life to cause actions; right and wrong would be no more than a hypotheticalPaulSacramento wrote:Yes of course you are right in that regard, I mean, without intelligent life there is no math either.Kenny wrote:Paulsacramento
I think you are reading a little too far into this my friend! The only point I am trying to make is without intelligent life, there is no objective morality. That’s it! And it appears you agree with me.
Ken
BUT 1+1 would still be 2 and right and wrong would still exist and that is what I don't think you are grasping.
Ken
The holocaust WAS evil. (past tense)jlay wrote:I think a better question is this, if humans ceased to exist, would the holocaust still be evil?Kenny wrote:The equation 1+1=2 is made up of reprehensive tokens. It is those tokens that represent reality. With right and wrong, if there were no intelligent life to cause actions; right and wrong would be no more than a hypotheticalPaulSacramento wrote:Yes of course you are right in that regard, I mean, without intelligent life there is no math either.Kenny wrote:Paulsacramento
I think you are reading a little too far into this my friend! The only point I am trying to make is without intelligent life, there is no objective morality. That’s it! And it appears you agree with me.
Ken
BUT 1+1 would still be 2 and right and wrong would still exist and that is what I don't think you are grasping.
Ken
So, 2 +2 = 5 would be right?Kenny wrote:The equation 1+1=2 is made up of reprehensive tokens. It is those tokens that represent reality. With right and wrong, if there were no intelligent life to cause actions; right and wrong would be no more than a hypotheticalPaulSacramento wrote:Yes of course you are right in that regard, I mean, without intelligent life there is no math either.Kenny wrote:Paulsacramento
I think you are reading a little too far into this my friend! The only point I am trying to make is without intelligent life, there is no objective morality. That’s it! And it appears you agree with me.
Ken
BUT 1+1 would still be 2 and right and wrong would still exist and that is what I don't think you are grasping.
Ken
You're kidding; right?PaulSacramento wrote:So, 2 +2 = 5 would be right?Kenny wrote:The equation 1+1=2 is made up of reprehensive tokens. It is those tokens that represent reality. With right and wrong, if there were no intelligent life to cause actions; right and wrong would be no more than a hypotheticalPaulSacramento wrote:Yes of course you are right in that regard, I mean, without intelligent life there is no math either.Kenny wrote:Paulsacramento
I think you are reading a little too far into this my friend! The only point I am trying to make is without intelligent life, there is no objective morality. That’s it! And it appears you agree with me.
Ken
BUT 1+1 would still be 2 and right and wrong would still exist and that is what I don't think you are grasping.
Ken
Thank-youjlay wrote:Kenny,
Best of luck to you.