- 15 Jun 2018 19:08
#14924828
That topic has been part of the conversation until the last few posts (basically the entire debate), so God's character has always been part of the context of this conversation, but my question was about YOUR ability to justify a moral critique (in that case against God Himself).
the point is, my asking you to justify your moral condemnations preceded you specific request for me to prove the existence of an objective morality.
Thus, my question came first and you should answer first.
Then you are not talking about morality if you are not talking about obligation.
The naturalistic fallacy is inferring from that which is observed, an obligation. its not merely about "assumption" but about inference. Any morality that is claimed to be obligatory on the basis of empirical evidence MUST commit this fallacy by definition for empirical evidence can only EVER examine what IS. Thus a morality (ought) based on empirical evidence (Is) would meet that fallacy exactly.
I have NEVER claimed that morality was an empirical reality, EVER.
I have affirmed morality as objective, universal, and absolute. That is not the same as being empirically verifiable.
Logic, for instance, is objective, universal, and absolute, but it is not empirically verifiable in-and-of-itself.
Thus, if morality is to be established as objective, it must be established on the basis of reason (logic).
Likewise, technically speaking, empirical knowledge reduces to individual sense-experience and so even if morality could be empirically verified, it would still be impossible to call that morality objective because of the subjective character of perception itself.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you look at the context of my previous post and the next one, it is clear we are discussing god’s immorality.
The fact that your other question is similar does not change the fact tht theynare two separate questions.
That topic has been part of the conversation until the last few posts (basically the entire debate), so God's character has always been part of the context of this conversation, but my question was about YOUR ability to justify a moral critique (in that case against God Himself).
the point is, my asking you to justify your moral condemnations preceded you specific request for me to prove the existence of an objective morality.
Thus, my question came first and you should answer first.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it is not a naturalistic fallacy if there is evidence. It is only a naturalistic fallacy if we assume we ought to do what is. Since this assumption is not being made, it is not a naturalistic fallacy.
Then you are not talking about morality if you are not talking about obligation.
The naturalistic fallacy is inferring from that which is observed, an obligation. its not merely about "assumption" but about inference. Any morality that is claimed to be obligatory on the basis of empirical evidence MUST commit this fallacy by definition for empirical evidence can only EVER examine what IS. Thus a morality (ought) based on empirical evidence (Is) would meet that fallacy exactly.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am instead saying that there is no empirical verification for an objective morality.
And I agree with Hume that science deals,with facts and morality deals with values and that they are two separate things. You seem to be saying that objective morality is a fact. If it were a fact, we could actually expect some manner of empirical verification.
There is evidence, however, of subjective moralities. Even a cursory glance at history or the modern world shows that there are many moral systems, and all of them differ according to culture, custom, history, religion, etc.
I have NEVER claimed that morality was an empirical reality, EVER.
I have affirmed morality as objective, universal, and absolute. That is not the same as being empirically verifiable.
Logic, for instance, is objective, universal, and absolute, but it is not empirically verifiable in-and-of-itself.
Thus, if morality is to be established as objective, it must be established on the basis of reason (logic).
Likewise, technically speaking, empirical knowledge reduces to individual sense-experience and so even if morality could be empirically verified, it would still be impossible to call that morality objective because of the subjective character of perception itself.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry