Gyroscopic Investing

Xan wrote: Because there isn't any deductive, logical way to go from non-moral premises to moral conclusions.

What is the basis for that belief? Why do you think that?

You're welcome to prove me wrong, but such a leap would have to be a non-sequitur.  You can't suddenly switch realms in the middle of an argument.

Xan wrote: You're welcome to prove me wrong, but such a leap would have to be a non-sequitur.  You can't suddenly switch realms in the middle of an argument.

As an example of moving from "is" to "ought", you can say "Due to the nature of reality, if you want to survive, then you ought to behave in way X." Assuming this is a demonstrably true statement, if the response is "But I don't want to survive", you counter with "In that case, go ahead and die; I'll continue the discussion with someone who wishes to survive."

Libertarian666 wrote:As an example of moving from "is" to "ought", you can say "Due to the nature of reality, if you want to survive, then you ought to behave in way X." Assuming this is a demonstrably true statement, if the response is "But I don't want to survive", you counter with "In that case, go ahead and die; I'll continue the discussion with someone who wishes to survive."

Right, you can't move from the premise (the nature of reality) to a moral conclusion without dragging in another conditional, a value, something subjective, in this case a "want".

And in any case, surviving vs not surviving isn't really a moral issue in the first place.  And in addition to that, it's arguing from effects, which is verboten.

In fact, that example isn't really an "ought" at all.  It's just a restatement of cause and effect.

Xan wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:As an example of moving from "is" to "ought", you can say "Due to the nature of reality, if you want to survive, then you ought to behave in way X." Assuming this is a demonstrably true statement, if the response is "But I don't want to survive", you counter with "In that case, go ahead and die; I'll continue the discussion with someone who wishes to survive."

Right, you can't move from the premise (the nature of reality) to a moral conclusion without dragging in another conditional, a value, something subjective, in this case a "want".

And in any case, surviving vs not surviving isn't really a moral issue in the first place.  And in addition to that, it's arguing from effects, which is verboten.

In fact, that example isn't really an "ought" at all.  It's just a restatement of cause and effect.

I'm probably handing Kshartle a bone that I shouldn't, but the closest thing to inferring an ought from an is, the way I see it, is bridging the "preference" for objective, universally applicable truth in logic/reasoning over to areas of human behavior.  That this flows naturally.  That we "ought" to behave in objectively universally applicable ways, no different than we recognize universal truths and consistency as having logical value.

It's this seemingly objective valuation of universality that seems to be the bridge (or tight rope) anarcho-capitalists walk to move to the idea of self-ownership, but they 1) conflate terms (own: Control vs own: exercise morally legitimate exclusive control over), and 2) ignore other ethical systems that can be universalized.

Even utilitarianism, to me, can be universalized, as it places a universal DUTY on everyone to act in such a manor that maximizes overall happiness.  It doesn't delineate "rights," unless it can be shown that having a government (or person) defend certain "rights" has a utilitarian value in practice.... but then "rights" just becomes a malleable function of utilitarianism, rather than a moral measure in-and-of-itself.

Once you realize that while utilitarianism puts VALUE on all individuals (and, more specifically, their happiness), that this doesn't necessarily imply any rights (beyond in legal form for utilitarian purposes), then utilitarianism is universally applicable, since it puts the same burden of utility-maximization on everyone, with concepts of equal value on overall happiness, but no true "rights" that must not be violated.

So there's a lot of errors there still, and I don't think universality IMPLIES morality.  It can help create consistency and maybe even guide behavior if we feel that consistency is objectively valuable, but that doesn't imply property rights or intrinsic value of people, to me.  Those concepts are simply useful to guiding human behavior into certain potentially universally acceptable arrangements.  To me the premise of an objective value on consistency/universality does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that those concepts exist.

But, as usual, I'm probably getting ahead of the argument.  We can stick with K's assertions for now, and leave the leap discussion until its natural discussion point.

Xan wrote: This has been awfully quiet for a while...

Clearly the sticking point is going to the crossing of the is/ought barrier.  The first premise that includes "should" or "ought" will be assuming the conclusion, and the first statement that includes either of those words will not follow from the premises.

Even just trying to prove that cold-blooded, unmotivated murder is wrong is, well, impossible.  You can lay out all the premises you want, but the minute you say "therefore, you ought not to murder" you've made a leap.

For what it is worth, and in this thread probably not much since we are for a while eliminating God from the equation, I had a discussion with three very learned Pastors (STMs and PhD) about this subject (yes, I realize they have their biases just like the rest of us).  I asked them if they thought it was possible to prove such things as NAP, self-ownership, or a universally held moral system without an external source such as God.  The all said no.  They said that when one eliminates God from the equation (external source of righteousness), it is almost a natural that one then tries to develop some type of a moral system to replace God (kind of like K is trying to do).  They all said to the best of their knowledge, all the previous efforts to do that had failed.  So, if they are correct, Kshartle has a monumental task in front of him.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

A couple things:

1) Kshartle has a monumental task in front of him because he has to prove what most of us believe to be in existence, yet unprovable.  That doesn't mean morality doesn't fundamentally exist.  I tend to think it does.  I don't think it's "just a social meme."  I can't look at someone holding a kid under water to drown him/her, and say "that's wrong... because the townsfolk say so."  Others disagree with this.  But it's a different conversation because we're talking a lot more about "feelings" than equations.

Just because something hasn't been proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  So while the task of PROVING self-ownership (or some other moral concept) is monumental, that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist without God.

2) If you can't prove the existence of God, then yours is just another theory next to NAP, utilitarianism, Kantianism, Objectivism, Amoralism, yada, yada.  In fact, even if there were a provable God, you'd probably have to run an equation to somehow prove that because he created us, he gets to define what is moral and immoral, which implies that we'll have to go through some kind of similar process that proves that "God owns the affect of his actions," and that we are behaving rightly or wrongly based simply on what he asks of us.  This will likely have some similar difficulties in being proven that Kshartle will have trying to prove private property.

So, in summary of #2, you'd have to both prove both God's existence AND his monopoly over morality, if we are to put your arguments through logical rigor.

So we're still left with no proof of morality.  Assuming the existence of God makes it no simpler to me, unless you can deductively prove that his being our creator (or some other proven trait) logically leads to him being able to define morality (seems a moral claim in-and-of-itself), then your friends have a similarly rigorous task ahead of them.

I could see that if God is all-powerful, then he invented any mental concept, including morality, and therefore has the ability to bend it to his will, therefore "His word is law," but I think true morality is less about an order given by a creator, and more about the recognition of intrinsic value in another being.  A soul.  Now he may have made that soul, and created the concept with which we use to value it, but his dictates and our feelings towards another soul are two different things.  He could say "moda, kill your son," and if I put intrinsic value on my son's soul more-so than a dictate by God, I have exercised a moral judgement, based on feelings that HE created in my soul, that conflict with his DICTATE:

So which is more aligned with the concept of morality... 1) a God-installed concept of valuing another sovereign entity as having intrinsic moral value because of their consciousness (probably (or definitely) his greatest accomplishment and installation into life on earth), or 2) his dictation to kill my own son making it all of a sudden morally correct to do so, even though it goes against every feeling of decency I have within my God-given soul?

moda,

We will never be able to deductively "prove" the existence of God until Judgement Day when we will understand first-hand the promises of God.  So, in the meantime, I live my life trying my best but frequently failing to live the way God wishes me to live (i.e. God's Law and for purposes of this discussion is similar to what we in this thread are calling a moral system).  Thank God for his mercy and that He does not give me what I deserve.  Thank God that Jesus took on all our sin, even death for those who believe, and took it to the grave.

The implications of salvation "through faith alone" permeate everything we Lutherans believe and teach. For example, we believe that the conversion of sinners is a gift of God and not the result of any human effort or decision. Lutherans therefore confess in the words of Luther's explanation to the third article of the Apostle's Creed: "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel."

Lutherans are by no means anti-intellectual, and we thank God for our reasoning ability. We use it to seek to understand, to present and to defend what we believe, but we do reject all suggestions that scientific evidence or rational arguments can prove Christian truth claims. By the same token, we uphold the importance of emotion and feeling in the life of the Christian, but we steadfastly repudiate any reliance on conversion experiences or "charismatic gifts" for the certainty of salvation. We believe that the Scriptures teach that the sole object of saving faith is Jesus Christ and his resurrection, and that it is only by the miraculous power of God the Holy Spirit that the Christian can say, "I believe." Faith is not a human work but a gift from God.

"Through faith alone" also implies that it is only through the proclamation of the Gospel–in Word and Sacrament–that the Holy Spirit gives the gift of faith. The proclamation of the Gospel Word in public preaching therefore occupies a central position in our Lutheran theology. Missouri Lutheran churches are preaching churches. But we are also sacramental churches, for the sacraments–Baptism and the Lord's Supper–are the Gospel made visible.

Finally, to say "through faith alone" means that we believe that, to use a phrase Luther made famous, Christians are at the same time sinners and saints (simul justus et peccator). Justification is an act, a
declaration. It is not a process. Through faith in Christ, and only through faith, sinners are declared to be forgiven and to be perfectly right with God. This declaration is whole and complete, totally independent of any inherent goodness in us sinners. In short, because of God's act on the cross received through faith, we sinners are declared to be perfect saints in God's sight. But this does not mean that forgiven sinners, when judged by God's law, do not continue to be sinners. We are not "perfectionists" in the sense of teaching that following conversion, Christians stop sinning. "Forgiveness is needed constantly," says Luther. "Because we are encumbered with our flesh, we are never without sin".

Because of our emphasis on justification through faith alone, we Lutherans have sometimes been understood to advocate, or at least to condone, what the German Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer condemned as "cheap grace," that is, taking sin for granted and ignoring concern for a life of holy living. But such notions are a perversion of what we believe. "Love and good works must also follow faith," writes Melanchthon, because "God has commanded them and in order to exercise our faith" (Apology of the Augsburg Confession IV, 74 and 189). In other words, we believe that good works are necessary—but they are not necessary for salvation. Because we believe that salvation is both "by grace alone" and "through faith alone," we Lutherans refuse to give a logically satisfying answer to the age-old question of why some people are saved and others are not. We disagree with those, like Calvin, who teach that since salvation is God's free gift, hell for those who do not believe must be proof that God does not want everyone to be saved. In opposition to this view, we maintain that the Scriptures clearly teach that God desires all "to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).

Yet we also disagree with those who answer the question "why some and not others" on the basis of something which human beings do or possess, as if the ultimate cause for salvation is our striving or cooperating or "deciding" for Christ. The Scriptures teach that all people by nature are "dead in ...transgressions and sins" (Eph. 2:1), utterly incapable of contributing anything to their conversion or salvation. If sinners, therefore, come to believe in Christ, this is the result of God's power at work in them. If they continue to reject the Gospel, this is their own fault. We do not regard this response as a "cop-out" but simply as faithfulness to what the Scriptures themselves teach about the doctrine of election.

... Mountaineer

Kshartle wrote: I have to work too. This will take a lot of time. There are a lot of beliefs that must be shattered, not the least of which is the idea that there are multiple, correct moralities.

We have to agree that there is some form of reality, that something actually exists. That existance would be truth and anything said in oppostion to reality is false.

The idea that things are true simply because someone beleives abounds here.

So lets start with the really basic (although not widely understood idea) that there is actually something called reality.

1. Something is real, even if we don't understand it or see it.
2. We are a part of that reality, in some form or another.
3. The form that we accept, and I think the only one that a case can be made for, is that we are human beings. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have concious thoughts.
4. No one else is us. We are unique individuals. No one else occupies the space that we are in. No one else has our mind, and no one can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed but this is external activity).

So, to add to my previous post that discusses faith, even Kshartle's first premise requires faith.  For me, the question reduces to the simplest version:  Who is going to be God?  God or something else?

It seems the first premise requires faith in man's logic or himself in order to accept some "fact"; i.e. man is going to be God.  God being defined as that which we place our trust in or derive comfort from.  Thus, even though we are now up to a dozen premises or so, it is a faulty assumption from the get-go to make man god.  If ones faith derives from man, to me it is very suspect and subject to error.

My worldview is to let God be God and trust in His promises.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I have to work too. This will take a lot of time. There are a lot of beliefs that must be shattered, not the least of which is the idea that there are multiple, correct moralities.

We have to agree that there is some form of reality, that something actually exists. That existance would be truth and anything said in oppostion to reality is false.

The idea that things are true simply because someone beleives abounds here.

So lets start with the really basic (although not widely understood idea) that there is actually something called reality.

1. Something is real, even if we don't understand it or see it.
2. We are a part of that reality, in some form or another.
3. The form that we accept, and I think the only one that a case can be made for, is that we are human beings. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have concious thoughts.
4. No one else is us. We are unique individuals. No one else occupies the space that we are in. No one else has our mind, and no one can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed but this is external activity).

So, to add to my previous post that discusses faith, even Kshartle's first premise requires faith.  For me, the question reduces to the simplest version:  Who is going to be God?  God or something else?

It seems the first premise requires faith in man's logic or himself in order to accept some "fact"; i.e. man is going to be God.  God being defined as that which we place our trust in or derive comfort from.  Thus, even though we are now up to a dozen premises or so, it is a faulty assumption from the get-go to make man god.  If ones faith derives from man, to me it is very suspect and subject to error.

My worldview is to let God be God and trust in His promises.

... Mountaineer

Far be it from me to criticize your worldview, but as it is not provable, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Mountaineer,

First off, we aren't trying to put our "faith" in anyone, but instead find as many answers as possible using logic and science... Our ability to see reason and cause/effect.  Perhaps that is, in effect, putting faith in ourselves, but our ability to think and feel is all we have to work with... It's your ability to "feel" the existence of god that informs you of what you believe to be his existence. So one might argue that you are putting more "faith in yourself" than the more logic-based crowd.  The logic-based crowd is trying to surrender to objective observable fact as often as possible. You're surrendering to what you believe to be a higher power due to your subjective feelings of faith. So I would respectfully assert that if anyone is putting too much faith in themselves, it is you.

So how about we only use the word God to describe the entity... We all have to put faith in certain aspects of our consiousness.  I've found that understanding emotion is immensely important, but reason is more often the most objective tool we have to deal with observations of the world around us when trying to determine "truth."

Thanks though for your thoughtful input on the matter. It's a great discussion.

moda0306 wrote: Mountaineer,

First off, we aren't trying to put our "faith" in anyone, but instead find as many answers as possible using logic and science... Our ability to see reason and cause/effect.  Perhaps that is, in effect, putting faith in ourselves, but our ability to think and feel is all we have to work with... It's your ability to "feel" the existence of god that informs you of what you believe to be his existence. So one might argue that you are putting more "faith in yourself" than the more logic-based crowd.  The logic-based crowd is trying to surrender to objective observable fact as often as possible. You're surrendering to what you believe to be a higher power due to your subjective feelings of faith. So I would respectfully assert that if anyone is putting too much faith in themselves, it is you.

So how about we only use the word God to describe the entity... We all have to put faith in certain aspects of our consiousness.  I've found that understanding emotion is immensely important, but reason is more often the most objective tool we have to deal with observations of the world around us when trying to determine "truth."

Thanks though for your thoughtful input on the matter. It's a great discussion.

moda,
Actually, I appreciate your viewpoint, and there is much I agree with.  For example, understanding emotion and the value of reason.  I just think that as we peel the onion, there is a core that is underneath emotion and reason and that core is where emotion and reason emanate from; i.e. "Where do emotion and reason come from?".  For me, that core would be the Triune God.  For you, it is apparently something else that we have not yet elucidated clearly.

Libertarian666,
Thank you for not bashing my worldview, as I try not to bash others' worldview.  I must say, however, that I do  know that my worldview is not provable, much as no ones worldview is provable (I think).  I also think my worldview has everything to do with this discussion, if I understand what we are discussing correctly - the objective is to prove the existence of absolute truth, right and wrong, NAP, self-ownership, or however you may wish to phrase it.  Perhaps I have misunderstood the objective; if so, please restate the objective.  As I have said earlier, I'm willing to go along with this for now, but I do think it is appropriate for me to add my thoughts unless the other participants do not wish to hear them for whatever reason; from my perspective, I'm just trying to get the group to explore all options.  If you cannot prove my worldview will fit within whatever it is Kshartle comes up with - then almost by definition, it will not be a universal "moral system" and the objective will not be met.  If that be the case, I will be silent.  All you have to do is tell me to stop participating in this thread and I will do so without any hard feelings what so ever.  It will just be your desire "is"; you will not even have to use the "ought" word that Xan mentioned earler.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Mountaineer,

First off, we aren't trying to put our "faith" in anyone, but instead find as many answers as possible using logic and science... Our ability to see reason and cause/effect.  Perhaps that is, in effect, putting faith in ourselves, but our ability to think and feel is all we have to work with... It's your ability to "feel" the existence of god that informs you of what you believe to be his existence. So one might argue that you are putting more "faith in yourself" than the more logic-based crowd.  The logic-based crowd is trying to surrender to objective observable fact as often as possible. You're surrendering to what you believe to be a higher power due to your subjective feelings of faith. So I would respectfully assert that if anyone is putting too much faith in themselves, it is you.

So how about we only use the word God to describe the entity... We all have to put faith in certain aspects of our consiousness.  I've found that understanding emotion is immensely important, but reason is more often the most objective tool we have to deal with observations of the world around us when trying to determine "truth."

Thanks though for your thoughtful input on the matter. It's a great discussion.

moda,
Actually, I appreciate your viewpoint, and there is much I agree with.  For example, understanding emotion and the value of reason.  I just think that as we peel the onion, there is a core that is underneath emotion and reason and that core is where emotion and reason emanate from; i.e. "Where do emotion and reason come from?".  For me, that core would be the Triune God.  For you, it is apparently something else that we have not yet elucidated clearly.

Libertarian666,
Thank you for not bashing my worldview, as I try not to bash others' worldview.  I must say, however, that I do  know that my worldview is not provable, much as no ones worldview is provable (I think).  I also think my worldview has everything to do with this discussion, if I understand what we are discussing correctly - the objective is to prove the existence of absolute truth, right and wrong, NAP, self-ownership, or however you may wish to phrase it.  Perhaps I have misunderstood the objective; if so, please restate the objective.  As I have said earlier, I'm willing to go along with this for now, but I do think it is appropriate for me to add my thoughts unless the other participants do not wish to hear them for whatever reason; from my perspective, I'm just trying to get the group to explore all options.  If you cannot prove my worldview will fit within whatever it is Kshartle comes up with - then almost by definition, it will not be a universal "moral system" and the objective will not be met.  If that be the case, I will be silent.  All you have to do is tell me to stop participating in this thread and I will do so without any hard feelings what so ever.  It will just be your desire "is"; you will not even have to use the "ought" word that Xan mentioned earler.

... Mountaineer

It's not up to me to decide who should post, but I just don't see the relevance of your worldview to the original topic, as it should be obvious that not everyone (or even everyone posting on this thread) accepts Christianity. Therefore, that cannot be the answer to the question of whether morality can be proven.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Mountaineer,

First off, we aren't trying to put our "faith" in anyone, but instead find as many answers as possible using logic and science... Our ability to see reason and cause/effect.  Perhaps that is, in effect, putting faith in ourselves, but our ability to think and feel is all we have to work with... It's your ability to "feel" the existence of god that informs you of what you believe to be his existence. So one might argue that you are putting more "faith in yourself" than the more logic-based crowd.  The logic-based crowd is trying to surrender to objective observable fact as often as possible. You're surrendering to what you believe to be a higher power due to your subjective feelings of faith. So I would respectfully assert that if anyone is putting too much faith in themselves, it is you.

So how about we only use the word God to describe the entity... We all have to put faith in certain aspects of our consiousness.  I've found that understanding emotion is immensely important, but reason is more often the most objective tool we have to deal with observations of the world around us when trying to determine "truth."

Thanks though for your thoughtful input on the matter. It's a great discussion.

moda,
Actually, I appreciate your viewpoint, and there is much I agree with.  For example, understanding emotion and the value of reason.  I just think that as we peel the onion, there is a core that is underneath emotion and reason and that core is where emotion and reason emanate from; i.e. "Where do emotion and reason come from?".  For me, that core would be the Triune God.  For you, it is apparently something else that we have not yet elucidated clearly.

Libertarian666,
Thank you for not bashing my worldview, as I try not to bash others' worldview.  I must say, however, that I do  know that my worldview is not provable, much as no ones worldview is provable (I think).  I also think my worldview has everything to do with this discussion, if I understand what we are discussing correctly - the objective is to prove the existence of absolute truth, right and wrong, NAP, self-ownership, or however you may wish to phrase it.  Perhaps I have misunderstood the objective; if so, please restate the objective.  As I have said earlier, I'm willing to go along with this for now, but I do think it is appropriate for me to add my thoughts unless the other participants do not wish to hear them for whatever reason; from my perspective, I'm just trying to get the group to explore all options.  If you cannot prove my worldview will fit within whatever it is Kshartle comes up with - then almost by definition, it will not be a universal "moral system" and the objective will not be met.  If that be the case, I will be silent.  All you have to do is tell me to stop participating in this thread and I will do so without any hard feelings what so ever.  It will just be your desire "is"; you will not even have to use the "ought" word that Xan mentioned earler.

... Mountaineer

It's not up to me to decide who should post, but I just don't see the relevance of your worldview to the original topic, as it should be obvious that not everyone (or even everyone posting on this thread) accepts Christianity. Therefore, that cannot be the answer to the question of whether morality can be proven.

If I understand your statement correctly, then since I personally don't accept "non-Christianity", proving morality without using Christianity cannot be the answer?  That does not seem to make sense.

... Mountaineer

Ok I've been absolutely swamped with work (it happens every couple months) a side project and my GF.

She's leaving tomorrow morning for a weekend in San Fran so I'll have a lot of time to get thoughts out Sat-Sun.

13. There is no such thing as un-owned property. Something isn't property unless it is owned.

14. Ownership of property is a term used to describe the state whereby someone (let's leave out animals for the moment please) has first claim on the use of or possesion of something.* That is, if there are multiple individuals trying to use or posses the same thing at the same time, if one has a higher claim than the all others we describe that state as ownership. *

* - I realize some of you might not believe this exists in reality. I'm putting forward initially that the idea or concept is described as ownership. We'll work on the rest.

Mountaineer wrote:

Xan wrote: This has been awfully quiet for a while...

Clearly the sticking point is going to the crossing of the is/ought barrier.  The first premise that includes "should" or "ought" will be assuming the conclusion, and the first statement that includes either of those words will not follow from the premises.

Even just trying to prove that cold-blooded, unmotivated murder is wrong is, well, impossible.  You can lay out all the premises you want, but the minute you say "therefore, you ought not to murder" you've made a leap.

For what it is worth, and in this thread probably not much since we are for a while eliminating God from the equation, I had a discussion with three very learned Pastors (STMs and PhD) about this subject (yes, I realize they have their biases just like the rest of us).  I asked them if they thought it was possible to prove such things as NAP, self-ownership, or a universally held moral system without an external source such as God.  The all said no.  They said that when one eliminates God from the equation (external source of righteousness), it is almost a natural that one then tries to develop some type of a moral system to replace God (kind of like K is trying to do).  They all said to the best of their knowledge, all the previous efforts to do that had failed.  So, if they are correct, Kshartle has a monumental task in front of him.

... Mountaineer

I didn't eliminate God.

I'm the one typing this message. That is an objective fact (you're going to have to trust me). God doesn't have to exist for me to be typing this as an objective fact. It might be that he created the entire universe though, or not.

We don't need God to exist to prove that other things exist. If anything exists it exists regardless of God existing.

Saying that we cannot prove morality or objectively right or wrong (moral) behavior exists without God is no different from saying we can't prove that anything exists without God, or, if anything exists God must exist.

It's a fallacious argument and there is no basis for the belief that God's existance is required to prove anything exists in reality.

moda0306 wrote: Just because something hasn't been proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  So while the task of PROVING self-ownership (or some other moral concept) is monumental, that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist without God.

Bingo.

I should have read ahead. Trying to catch up in a spare minute.

Mountaineer wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: moda,
Actually, I appreciate your viewpoint, and there is much I agree with.  For example, understanding emotion and the value of reason.  I just think that as we peel the onion, there is a core that is underneath emotion and reason and that core is where emotion and reason emanate from; i.e. "Where do emotion and reason come from?".  For me, that core would be the Triune God.  For you, it is apparently something else that we have not yet elucidated clearly.

Libertarian666,
Thank you for not bashing my worldview, as I try not to bash others' worldview.  I must say, however, that I do  know that my worldview is not provable, much as no ones worldview is provable (I think).  I also think my worldview has everything to do with this discussion, if I understand what we are discussing correctly - the objective is to prove the existence of absolute truth, right and wrong, NAP, self-ownership, or however you may wish to phrase it.  Perhaps I have misunderstood the objective; if so, please restate the objective.  As I have said earlier, I'm willing to go along with this for now, but I do think it is appropriate for me to add my thoughts unless the other participants do not wish to hear them for whatever reason; from my perspective, I'm just trying to get the group to explore all options.  If you cannot prove my worldview will fit within whatever it is Kshartle comes up with - then almost by definition, it will not be a universal "moral system" and the objective will not be met.  If that be the case, I will be silent.  All you have to do is tell me to stop participating in this thread and I will do so without any hard feelings what so ever.  It will just be your desire "is"; you will not even have to use the "ought" word that Xan mentioned earler.

... Mountaineer

It's not up to me to decide who should post, but I just don't see the relevance of your worldview to the original topic, as it should be obvious that not everyone (or even everyone posting on this thread) accepts Christianity. Therefore, that cannot be the answer to the question of whether morality can be proven.

If I understand your statement correctly, then since I personally don't accept "non-Christianity", proving morality without using Christianity cannot be the answer?  That does not seem to make sense.

... Mountaineer

I think Kshartle has answered this better than I would have, so I'll let that stand.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Xan wrote: You're welcome to prove me wrong, but such a leap would have to be a non-sequitur.  You can't suddenly switch realms in the middle of an argument.

As an example of moving from "is" to "ought", you can say "Due to the nature of reality, if you want to survive, then you ought to behave in way X." Assuming this is a demonstrably true statement, if the response is "But I don't want to survive", you counter with "In that case, go ahead and die; I'll continue the discussion with someone who wishes to survive."

I was going to go down this exact path in a little while. The idea that you can't go from an "is" to an "ought" is completely wrong.

There are endless examples. I have about two dozen in mind that are so obvious there won't be any confusion. This is the road I was going down with humans expecting a certian outcome from their decisions and basing their decisions on their interpretation/assesment etc. of reality.

Humans can't breathe underwater without assitance from an object or another person - reality

A human who wants to live who chooses to breathe underwater without assistance because they think they can is incorrectly assesing objective reality.

Ergo, they "ought not" do that (open their mouth and try to breathe underwater). It is objectively wrong behavior/choice/decision.

But this is jumping ahead. I want people to get very simple and basic premises that they can agree are objectively true so when we start combining them into bigger concepts they will have to self-contradict to maintain dissagreement and protect their belief systems/bias/ego.

At first glance I was going to jump all over this post!!

Then I saw what you were really trying to say.  I'm pretty sure I can agree with this (obviously leaving out grey area stuff, animals, pollution, etc).

Even though we have yet to prove the moral concept of "ownership" exists, I think I understand and can agree with this definition of property, as well as that IF property exists, it must be owned.

So un-claimed land (even though we use the term sloppily sometimes) would not be "property," until it is validly claimed, correct?

All in agreement?

Kshartle wrote:
If anything exists it exists regardless of God existing.

Saying that we cannot prove morality or objectively right or wrong behavior exists without God is no different from saying we can't prove that anything exists without God, or, if anything exists God must exist.

It's a fallacious argument and there is no basis for the belief that God's existance is required to prove anything exists in reality.

I disagree.  Nothing would exist without God (except God).  However, I cannot prove that, just like it cannot be proven my statement is incorrect.  Modifying your statement slightly, there is no basis for the belief that God's existance is NOT required to prove anything exists in reality.  As I stated earlier, faith in something is required whichever one of those you want to accept.  Then the question is "where does faith come from", or "where does man's reason come from", etc.  Are you going to address those questions?  Upon what deductive reasoning basis do you think objective facts are correct?

... Mountaineer

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Just because something hasn't been proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  So while the task of PROVING self-ownership (or some other moral concept) is monumental, that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist without God.

Bingo.

I should have read ahead. Trying to catch up in a spare minute.

It doesn't mean it does exist, either, K!

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote:
If anything exists it exists regardless of God existing.

Saying that we cannot prove morality or objectively right or wrong behavior exists without God is no different from saying we can't prove that anything exists without God, or, if anything exists God must exist.

It's a fallacious argument and there is no basis for the belief that God's existance is required to prove anything exists in reality.

I disagree.  Nothing would exist without God (except God).  However, I cannot prove that, just like it cannot be proven my statement is incorrect.  Modifying your statement slightly, there is no basis for the belief that God's existance is NOT required to prove anything exists in reality.  As I stated earlier, faith in something is required whichever one of those you want to accept.  Then the question is "where does faith come from", or "where does man's reason come from", etc.  Are you going to address those questions?  Upon what deductive reasoning basis do you think objective facts are correct?

... Mountaineer

I don't mean to be difficult, but it is logically necessary that anyone who says "I won't accept a solution that doesn't include X" (for any value of X) is not willing to participate in a discussion in which X is not assumed.

Accordingly, since this discussion does not assume God, and you require that assumption, why are you posting in this thread?

Mountaineer wrote: there is no basis for the belief that God's existance is NOT required to prove anything exists in reality. 

Sure there is. I exist. I can even prove it. You just said you can't prove God exists and I agree with you.

That's pretty good basis for the belief that we don't need to prove God's existance to prove the existance of anything.

Kshartle wrote:I was going to go down this exact path in a little while. The idea that you can't go from an "is" to an "ought" is completely wrong.

Sorry, nope.

Kshartle wrote:Humans can't breathe underwater without assitance from an object or another person - reality

A human who wants to live who chooses to breathe underwater without assistance because they think they can is incorrectly assesing objective reality.

Ergo, they "ought not" do that (open their mouth and try to breathe underwater). It is objectively wrong behavior/choice/decision.

It depends on their goals.  You're assuming their goal is survival.  In other words, the fully-stated version of your sentence is, "If the person's goal is to survive, then he ought not to breath underwater."

You see how in order to bring in the word "ought", you end up making assumptions, and indeed value judgments, about the person's goals.  You might then say, well, that person's goal OUGHT to be survival.  And there we are: "ought" in an unproven premise.