tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post563654022580990746..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Broken Law (Updated)Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger386125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77454405537161970402012-01-11T02:11:51.857-08:002012-01-11T02:11:51.857-08:00@Arthur ""Evil is not a privation, as an...@Arthur "<i>"Evil is not a privation, as any fule kno."</i><br /><br /><br />Wow. Our hero, ladies and gentlemen: Stephen Law, great philosopher."<br /><br />I think you hav missed the litry refrens behind this comment. Suffice to say that GRIMES and his KANES are Evil but not a privation.<br /><br /><br />(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Molesworth)Tony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81476123919070459552012-01-10T14:06:23.238-08:002012-01-10T14:06:23.238-08:00"Evil is not a privation, as any fule kno.&qu...<i>"Evil is not a privation, as any fule kno."</i><br /><br /><br />Wow. Our hero, ladies and gentlemen: Stephen Law, great philosopher.Arthurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43926481266429504942012-01-10T13:50:09.434-08:002012-01-10T13:50:09.434-08:00Do your medieval "demonstrations" that f...<i>Do your medieval "demonstrations" that few philosophers find persuasive really carry much weight against my overwhelming empirical evidence that your God does not exist?<br /><br />We'd need to examine them and find out. Though, as I say, the verdict of the philosophical community is already in.</i><br /><br />Hoo boy. It's always sad to see a pro philosopher reduced to tactics that would make a sophomore blush. I was willing to give Law a respectful hearing right up until he started saying things like this. I guess no-one is above Appeal to Majority, even a professional philosopher.Arthurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21315778747110097272011-12-08T08:12:32.727-08:002011-12-08T08:12:32.727-08:00On reflection, I believe that I gave Dr Law the be...On reflection, I believe that I gave Dr Law the benfit of the doubt with regard to his Evil God Challenge - especially in his debate with William Lane Craig.<br /><br />However, after some of the incredibly long and conveluted exchanges, as well as re-listening to his debate with Dr Craig, I think many of the criticisms leveled against Dr Law do actually STICK. This is not because he hasn't attempted to deal with them, but he has not managed to persuade those interested in understanding his arguments (like me) in any meaningful way, which is what he needs for his challenge to even get off the ground.<br /><br />Dr Law admits that many atheists missundertand the argument, so how can he hope to convince the theist-on-the-street. As I said above:<br /><br />"...until Dr Law can come up with a challenge that I can make sense of, it seems to me that I can continue to believe in God without offending my faculties or my faith."Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08433353855828550566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76758461497182921502011-12-06T18:21:54.021-08:002011-12-06T18:21:54.021-08:00You're saying you can call something "imm...<i>You're saying you can call something "immoral" while simultaneously saying that it's only your subjective opinion. So why should anyone take you seriously, then?</i><br /><br />Since all moral positions are subjective then, according to you, nobody should take any moral position seriously?<br /><br />I could always claim that my moral positions were somehow objectively the correct moral positions... but without evidence to back that up I'd just be making wild claims. So instead I try to provide rational explanations for why I find particular actions moral / immoral.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14538317106209984152011-12-05T06:41:57.583-08:002011-12-05T06:41:57.583-08:00@ StoneTop
"Sure I can... As long as I'm...@ StoneTop<br /><br /><i>"Sure I can... As long as I'm not claiming that my moral code is objective I can say that I find a given action immoral."</i><br /><br />I don't get why you don't understand how this statement is ridiculous. <br /><br />You're saying you can call something "immoral" while simultaneously saying that it's only your subjective opinion. So why should anyone take you seriously, then?Johnny Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02740205023903547365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34548767399387076592011-12-03T13:28:42.508-08:002011-12-03T13:28:42.508-08:00Troll!Troll!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16893431924085178122011-12-03T12:16:37.878-08:002011-12-03T12:16:37.878-08:00Wow Ben... You really need to step back and relax ...Wow Ben... You really need to step back and relax a bit. No need to get so worked up over a discussion in the comments of a blogStoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44093804144640347202011-12-01T23:01:07.697-08:002011-12-01T23:01:07.697-08:00Now you are in full John Cleese mode tops.
So aga...Now you are in full John Cleese mode tops.<br /><br />So again f*** off.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52882836633530162112011-12-01T18:22:28.674-08:002011-12-01T18:22:28.674-08:00Feser has host of blog posts explaining Aristotle&...<i>Feser has host of blog posts explaining Aristotle's definition of good which I clearly cited.</i><br /><br />Yep, and I'm simply pointing out that that definition is riddled with inconsistencies if you are trying to define an objective good.<br /><br />A better definition is that individuals seek what they view as good, based on prior experience.<br /><br />But then since every individual has a different set of prior experiences they will also have a different view on what is "good"..<br /><br />For example: based on my prior experience I see it as "good" when two men who are in love get married... while others do not share that belief (some even, rather absurdly, view it is "evil")StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14101473210804155232011-11-30T16:55:27.035-08:002011-11-30T16:55:27.035-08:00F*** off Tops.
You know what I meant. Feser has ...F*** off Tops.<br /><br />You know what I meant. Feser has host of blog posts explaining Aristotle's definition of good which I clearly cited.<br /><br />If you had really read the relevant material on this blog you would have recognized that.<br /><br />But you are not reading it. Nor are you asking serious questions.<br /><br />So again F*** off.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75768594343482082032011-11-30T14:12:24.567-08:002011-11-30T14:12:24.567-08:00I denied saying that and of course anyone who read...<i>I denied saying that and of course anyone who reads my posts before that can see I never said that.</i><br /><br />Then what did you mean by "The "good" is what everything desires."? If "good" is objective then don't all things desire the same "good"?<br /><br />If Tuna Casserole is objectively "good" then that would mean that I was wrong when I said that I found it repulsive.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37891199337833424092011-11-29T20:48:42.344-08:002011-11-29T20:48:42.344-08:00I wrote:
These are all non-starters since I never...I wrote:<br /><br /><b>These are all non-starters since I never said all things desire the same "goods".</b> At this point you will say something asinine like "How can a rock desire anything".<br /><br />You replied"<br /><br />>Well you do open the door to such questions <b>when you say that "all things desire the same "goods""</b>... as rocks are an element in the set of all things.<br /><br />I denied saying that and of course anyone who reads my posts before that can see I never said that.<br /><br />So you have crossed over into full Troll mode here Tops.<br /><br />You aren't even trying to respond intelligently. You are not even reading the posts carefully.<br /><br />Anon was right about you QUOTE"Ignorance is defensible -- we all have to start somewhere -- <b>but the way you seem to resist curing your ignorance is not.</b> You seem bizarrely unwilling to find out what it is you are talking about, and then have the gall to complain that you don't get the responses you want."END QUOTE<br /><br />At this point you have become another djindra.<br /><br />If you applied yourself you could have become a dguller.<br /><br />But I guess against willful stupidity even the gods contend in vain.<br /><br />You are the face of the New Atheism. I weep for the other Atheists who are not Gnus.<br /><br />Weep I say!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50593449098351425342011-11-29T15:59:33.156-08:002011-11-29T15:59:33.156-08:00The "good" is what everything desires. I...<i>The "good" is what everything desires. I never said everything has the same type of good as it's desire(i.e. goal).</i><br /><br />But not everything desires the same thing... indeed two different beings can desire opposite things (a woman desires not to be raped, her rapist desires to rape her).<br /><br /><i>You prefer the "good" taste of food and your personal taste is different but so what? Are there people who prefer "bad" tasting food in Luwe of good?</i><br /><br />Nope... because in the English language "good" is often short hand for "something I find pleasing"... I find canned tuna repugnant, but others don't... so if you gave me a bite then asked if I thought it tasted good or bad I'd say bad, while someone who liked the taste of canned tuna would say that it tasted good. Is the taste of canned tuna objectively good or objectively bad?<br /><br /><i>No virture is objective. Who has the correct set of true virtues and why is the question.</i><br /><br />How would one go about proving that they have the 'right' set of virtues?<br /><br /><i>These are all non-starters since I never said all things desire the same "goods". At this point you will say something asinine like "How can a rock desire anything".</i><br /><br />Well you do open the door to such questions when you say that "all things desire the same "goods""... as rocks are an element in the set of all things.<br /><br />What are these "goods" that "all things" desire?StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59583528039163912992011-11-29T15:44:48.424-08:002011-11-29T15:44:48.424-08:00As I am aware of your "NO FAIR! You are not a...<i>As I am aware of your "NO FAIR! You are not a fundamentalist?" brand of Atheism. Get over it.</i><br /><br />It's not that you are not being "fair" it is that you are being rather inconsistent with regards to your beliefs.<br /><br /><i>It's unchristian to take the life of even an evil doer without God's authorization.</i><br /><br />So Genocide is acceptable as long as a deity approves?<br /><br /><i>It is not genocide(i.e. Mass Murder) since God has the right to give and take life as He see fit.</i><br /><br />So the 9/11 hijackers were behaving morally according to your beliefs? They killed lots of people because they believed that their monotheistic deity commanded it?<br /><br /><i>Calling the extermination of the Midianites "murder" begs the question since you have no objective moral standard by your own admission. It's all cultural and subjective.</i><br /><br />Sure I can... As long as I'm not claiming that my moral code is objective I can say that I find a given action immoral.<br /><br /><i>Besides she can refuse if she converts to Judaism and if she doesn't convert but stays a Ger Tov(a protected Noachide gentile alien) she is still not eligible to marry an Israelite.</i><br /><br />I'm questioning if the girl could be truly consenting.. what with the butchering of her parents / brothers, and the dragging off to a foreign land to be a slave, with the only alternative is to marry the person that put her parents / brothers to the sword.<br /><br /><i>The Bible says "all have sinned" but logically that can't be hyper literal. Did Jesus sin? Or God? Or the Virgin Mary</i><br /><br />So did the slaughtered infants sin? Assuming that having sinned is sufficient cause for getting slaughtered.<br /><br /><i>They where also all polytheists but the Israelite monotheists where the exception that proved the rule.</i><br /><br />So worship the right deity and you get to slaughter everyone else?StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78584793173247241252011-11-29T15:07:42.751-08:002011-11-29T15:07:42.751-08:00Plus I was clearly talking about a classic Absolut...<i>Plus I was clearly talking about a classic Absolute Monarchy not a modern Constitutional one. Which is more like God's rule analogously?</i><br /><br />Isn't Absolute Monarchy just rule by force... a "do what I say or I will kill you" kind of deal? Besides the point still stands... Is it coherent for a rule-maker to make a rule but then not follow it? Can one really say "don't steal" and then go a thieving, and not be seen as hypocritical?<br /><br /><i>The last time we spoke you equated the dualistic God of the Zoroastrians, Pantheistic Brahman, the Prime Mover of Aristotle with your latent Fundamentalist Theistic personalist concepts</i><br /><br />From someone who believes that their deity is three but still one I'm not sure why you have a problem with two but still one... or ten thousand but still one.<br /><br /><i> How anybody has a "right" to do or do not is naturally something you can't articulate.</i><br /><br />Sure I can... rights arise just like any other aspect of our legal code, from the culture in which they originate.<br /><br /><i>What about scientists and philosophers(not too few are Atheists) who believe morality evolved? That would at least show something Amoral can produce morality.</i><br /><br />A morality that is still relative to the society in which it evolved. Evolution only favors the morality that is most beneficial to a given culture at a given point in time, the exact contents of that code are irrelevant.<br /><br /><i>Which begs the question since how does a Classic Theistic God share a community with us and can be judged by you to be immoral to cause the death of His creatures whom he created? He doesn't can't coherently be described as such.</i><br /><br />How can that deity give morals without being part of the community?StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53250790273643245852011-11-28T21:34:32.926-08:002011-11-28T21:34:32.926-08:00@Tops
>Except that "good" is very su...@Tops<br /><br />>Except that "good" is very subjective... because there is nothing out there that everything "desires". <br /><br />The "good" is what everything desires. I never said everything has the same type of good as it's desire(i.e. goal).<br /><br />Anon is right. You don't know shit and you don't seem to want to learn. <br /><br />>I prefer Rieslings that are on the dry side, and as such I'd describe a rather dry Riesling as "good"... you may prefer sweet Rieslings (or not care for Rieslings at all).<br /><br />You prefer the "good" taste of food and your personal taste is different but so what? Are there people who prefer "bad" tasting food in Luwe of good?<br /><br />>Virtuous is similarly subjective... as there are those who find the actions of the 9/11 hijackers to be virtuous, while there are others (myself included) who do not see any virtue in that act.<br /><br />No virture is objective. Who has the correct set of true virtues and why is the question.<br /><br />>Useful is subjective as well... as what is useful to one person isn't useful to another (or even useful to a person in all circumstances... a parachute isn't useful if one is taking a shower, and a bar of soap isn't very useful if you fall out of an airplane.<br /><br />These are all non-starters since I never said all things desire the same "goods". At this point you will say something asinine like "How can a rock desire anything".<br /><br />Anon is right. You are an ignorant person who refuses to learn. dguller is an Atheist & is making a true effort to learn all this (not agree, but learn)and you are not in his league by a long shot. You are not even trying.<br /><br />I pity you.BenYachov Jim Scott 4thhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03241059314521385891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4435218664772427762011-11-28T20:05:39.076-08:002011-11-28T20:05:39.076-08:00>Oh I'm well familiar with your brand of &q...>Oh I'm well familiar with your brand of "follow the parts of the Bible I agree with, ignore the parts that I don't agree with".<br /><br />As I am aware of your "NO FAIR! You are not a fundamentalist?" brand of Atheism. Get over it.<br /><br />>So when the Bible describes people doing so they are acting immorally, even though the Bible says that your deity commanded them to do so?<br /><br />??????????????????????????? English please?<br /><br />>I thought you said that it was unChristian to kill non-combatants?<br /><br />It's unchristian to take the life of even an evil doer without God's authorization. (Self-defense is merely using sufficient force to protect your life which unfortunately ends in the death of the unjust attacker).<br /><br />>Or is genocide OK when your deity doesn't like the culture?<br /><br />It is not genocide(i.e. Mass Murder) since God has the right to give and take life as He see fit. Thus he can coherently murder anymore than an Absolute Monarch can be guilty of not paying taxes to Himself. It doesn't matter if God ends life directly or threw authorized agents. It can't be murder.<br /><br />>So if you murder a woman's family... carry her off to your country, and then ask her to marry you she can be said to be consenting if she agrees?<br /><br />Calling the extermination of the Midianites "murder" begs the question since you have no objective moral standard by your own admission. It's all cultural and subjective.<br />Besides she can refuse if she converts to Judaism and if she doesn't convert but stays a Ger Tov(a protected Noachide gentile alien) she is still not eligible to marry an Israelite. Judaism forbids marriage to non-Jews.<br /><br />>Same as above... could their conversions be said to be true conversions... and not just out of terror?<br /><br />They don't have to convert if they don't want too but only follow the 7 laws of Noah which even an Atheist could follow since they are all negative laws and don't require you profess anything. Some can choose in lew of conversion to accept more negative laws found in the Torah and obtain more rights. Conversion is not mandated. <br /><br />>So "kill everyone but unmarried females" means "leave all infants alive"?<br /><br />Yes. The Bible says "<b>all</b> have sinned" but logically that can't be hyper literal. Did Jesus sin? Or God? Or the Virgin Mary? I think not. Your fundie hyper-literalism is so cute. An Atheist Protestant! That sillyness will never get old in the laugh out loud department.<br /><br />>Indeed, we can look to other historical sources for a glimpse into the Semitic cultures of the Iron Age Levant... where slaughtering all the males /married females, the carrying off the virgins to be "wives" wasn't that uncommon as part of warfare.<br /><br />They where also all polytheists but the Israelite monotheists where the exception that proved the rule. <br /><br />So I fail to see the equivalence.BenYachov Jim Scott 4thhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03241059314521385891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61198862238536877342011-11-28T20:02:59.694-08:002011-11-28T20:02:59.694-08:00@Tops
>How so? The Queen of England does pay ta...@Tops<br />>How so? The Queen of England does pay taxes. <br /><br />Changing the subject alert. The point is the Queen doesn't have to pay taxes. She is under no <b>civil</b> obligation to do so. Plus I was clearly talking about a classic Absolute Monarchy not a modern Constitutional one. Which is more like God's rule analogously? Wow are you really that thick? You didn't get that?<br /><br />>How is my definition of a deity changing?<br /><br />A better question is since when do you have one? The last time we spoke you equated the dualistic God of the Zoroastrians, Pantheistic Brahman, the Prime Mover of Aristotle with your latent Fundamentalist Theistic personalist concepts.<br />I have never seen a wannabe fake it so hard in my life.<br /><br />>Actually it is incoherent for an entity to pass rules that it does not have to follow... Indeed that is quite often referred to as hypocritical.<br /><br />How can a Classic Thomistic view of God be coherently classified as an "entity"?<br />Since when? Here is yet another example of you equivocating god concepts.<br /><br />>Lets say that I was a Duke, and I ruled over a valley. <br /><br />As is you tendency to equivocate between Analogous comparisons with Unequivocal comparisons.<br /><br />>No, he may have the power to do so... and the desire to do so... but not the "right" to do so.<br /><br />Well that is your first honest answer but unfortunately it is merely a subjective claim on your part (by your own standards) & thus has no meaning. How anybody has a "right" to do or do not is naturally something you can't articulate.<br /><br />I won't hold my breath.<br /><br />>Correct, Evolution is amoral... and as such people don't look to the Theory of Evolution to give them morals (it describes what may happen, not necessarily what we want to happen).<br /><br />What about scientists and philosophers(not too few are Atheists) who believe morality evolved? That would at least show something Amoral can produce morality.<br /><br />>Right... and by that same token morals are relative to the community itself.<br /><br />Which begs the question since how does a Classic Theistic God share a community with us and can be judged by you to be immoral to cause the death of His creatures whom he created? He doesn't can't coherently be described as such.BenYachov Jim Scott 4thhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03241059314521385891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57179212200383321472011-11-28T17:42:17.292-08:002011-11-28T17:42:17.292-08:00A meaningless question since you equivocate betwee...<i>A meaningless question since you equivocate between different concepts of God at the drop of a hat. It's illogical.</i><br /><br />How is my definition of a deity changing?<br /><br /><i>Plus do you believe if there is any type of Creator God that He would have rights over His creations in the area of life vs death?</i><br /><br />No, he may have the power to do so... and the desire to do so... but not the "right" to do so.<br /><br /><i> But does that make it morally wrong for Evolution to do so since Evolution is not a moral agent and can't coherently be conceived as such? </i><br /><br />Correct, Evolution is amoral... and as such people don't look to the Theory of Evolution to give them morals (it describes what may happen, not necessarily what we want to happen).<br /><br /><i>Yes it an interesting question except it can't coherently be asked of God. Rules are for harmony within a shared community. A human ruler is part of the Human community.</i><br /><br />Right... and by that same token morals are relative to the community itself.<br /><br /><i>We are Catholics here thus it's a non-starter. We reject perspicuity like we reject private interpretation, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura..etc. Accept it</i><br /><br />Oh I'm well familiar with your brand of "follow the parts of the Bible I agree with, ignore the parts that I don't agree with".<br /><br /><i>Obviously it's immoral by Christian standards to take sex slaves & to kill non-combatants. </i><br /><br />So when the Bible describes people doing so they are acting immorally, even though the Bible says that your deity commanded them to do so?<br /><br /><i>We all know you are trying to make a equivalence between Genghis Khan vs God ordering Herem against the Midianites(Number 31) to kill the Adult Males and Married Women but keep the Virgin girls alive for the Israel.</i><br /><br />I thought you said that it was unChristian to kill non-combatants? Or is genocide OK when your deity doesn't like the culture?<br /><br /><i>3) They can't be forced to marry anybody against their will since the Oral Law & the Rabbinic Tradition says "A Women is acquired in marriage with her consent and not without it".</i><br /><br />So if you murder a woman's family... carry her off to your country, and then ask her to marry you she can be said to be consenting if she agrees?<br /><br /><i>4) They also have to convert to Judaism as well since marriage to a Gentile woman is invalid. </i><br /><br />Same as above... could their conversions be said to be true conversions... and not just out of terror?<br /><br /><i>Plus we don't know the cut off age for the unmarried male offspring being put to death so there is no reason to believe they killed infants. </i><br /><br />So "kill everyone but unmarried females" means "leave all infants alive"?<br /><br /><i>Sorry there is no reason to read the narrative in a fundamentalist literalistic manner without the Oral Law and Tradition. Nor do we rely on scripture alone.</i><br /><br />Indeed, we can look to other historical sources for a glimpse into the Semitic cultures of the Iron Age Levant... where slaughtering all the males /married females, the carrying off the virgins to be "wives" wasn't that uncommon as part of warfare.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72312640959454685952011-11-28T16:49:58.877-08:002011-11-28T16:49:58.877-08:00A human Queen is always under the moral law and th...<i>A human Queen is always under the moral law and thus may not licitly allow murder.</i><br /><br />Sure... but that moral law is based on culture. If the Queen lived in the culture where it was customary for the queen to hunt down and kill one of her subjects a month as part of a ritual to placate the chief deity of that kingdom then the people in the kingdom would see her act as a moral one (and would not likely call it murder, though I would disagree).<br /><br /><i>She may licitly be above paying taxes. </i><br /><br />How so? The Queen of England does pay taxes. Wouldn't it be inconsistent for her to declare herself to be exempt from the very rules she makes?<br /><br /><i>God is not a moral agent and God is not subject to the moral law since that would be incoherent.</i><br /><br />Actually it is incoherent for an entity to pass rules that it does not have to follow... Indeed that is quite often referred to as hypocritical.<br /><br />Lets say that I was a Duke, and I ruled over a valley. You come into my valley and buy some land, then I pass a rule saying that what a person grows on his land is his property... and that anyone who takes crops from another persons land is a thief. A few weeks later you find me out in your apple orchard having picked your entire apple crop. Am I a thief?StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67563821836402174862011-11-28T16:45:23.691-08:002011-11-28T16:45:23.691-08:00>I'm still waiting for an example of an imm...>I'm still waiting for an example of an immoral good act, or an evil moral act.<br /><br />Your question is still an argumentative fallacy as I have twice explained and you are determined to ignore it at all costs.<br /><br />Your belief things are either moral or immoral sans amorality is silly.<br /><br />Plus you can't seem to make up your mind if you are talking about Moral goodness specifically or goodness in general.<br /><br />Now you have gone into full troll mode.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64620200188814529782011-11-28T16:36:27.846-08:002011-11-28T16:36:27.846-08:00But in the earlier post you wrote:
there is an ex...<i>But in the earlier post you wrote:</i><br /><br />there is an extra space in there... it should be amoral not "a moral"<br /><br />I'm still waiting for an example of an immoral good act, or an evil moral act.<br /><br /><i>You are not discussing moral goodness then you are then you claim there is only moral vs immoral with no amorality</i><br /><br />I was unaware that English wasn't your first language. In the English language when one talks of good and evil one is speaking of moral perceptions of an act. For example if you found a particular person to be honest you might describe them as a good person, while a constant liar may be described as evil (or at least immoral). This differs from when the term good is used in amoral situations... as you might describe an apple pie you enjoyed as a "good apple pie" but you wouldn't describe an apple pie you disliked as an "evil apple pie"<br /><br /><i>You still have to provide an ontological definition of Good. I can do so from the perspective of Aristotle. The Good is that which everything desires. The Good can also be classified as the virtuous, useful and desirable.</i><br /><br />Except that "good" is very subjective... because there is nothing out there that everything "desires". I prefer Rieslings that are on the dry side, and as such I'd describe a rather dry Riesling as "good"... you may prefer sweet Rieslings (or not care for Rieslings at all).<br /><br />Virtuous is similarly subjective... as there are those who find the actions of the 9/11 hijackers to be virtuous, while there are others (myself included) who do not see any virtue in that act.<br /><br />Useful is subjective as well... as what is useful to one person isn't useful to another (or even useful to a person in all circumstances... a parachute isn't useful if one is taking a shower, and a bar of soap isn't very useful if you fall out of an airplane.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91907375898105554702011-11-28T14:56:58.521-08:002011-11-28T14:56:58.521-08:00StoneTop said... there seems to be a great deal of...<i>StoneTop said... there seems to be a great deal of difficulty answering a simple yes or no question.</i><br /><br />Alas, "simplicity" is subjective (look it up!). Your thinking a question can be answered simply "yes" or "no" does not make it so. Even if semantically it could, that does not mean it would be productive. You have shown yourself ignorant of many issues which you are trying to discuss. The ignorance is defensible -- we all have to start somewhere -- but the way you seem to resist curing your ignorance is not. You seem bizarrely unwilling to find out what it is you are talking about, and then have the gall to complain that you don't get the responses you want.<br /><br /><i>Is Genghis Khan's order moral or immoral? Are the warriors who follow his commands acting morally</i><br /><br />You're changing the subject again. Probably because you're so fuzzy on the foundations. That aside, your questions are not "simple", they are ambiguous. No doubt you know what you mean (ok, there is plenty of doubt, actually), but the context simply does not indicate, eg. whether you meant to ask whether Khan is culpable in issuing such an order, or whether the action is consonant with human nature. Similarly, you have failed to provide information about the warriors' mental states, if the question was intended to be about their moral responsibilities -- and if it was, then you have also ignored that their actions consist of multiple moral strands (with regard to the end result of the action vs. duties in carrying out properly issued commands, etc.).<br /><br /><i>it is your deity that determines the morality of a given act.</i><br /><br />"It" is? What's "it"? Two things were mentioned. Of course, the reference to "your deity" suggests that you have not understood either one.<br /><br /><i>Right... they are arguing over their model of objective reality fitting with objective reality.</i><br /><br />Let's recap: I said "they're arguing about things not ideas" and you said "Right, they're arguing about models not things". Ok, please add "right" to your dictionary list. But that isn't even the point: scientists disagree but the universe is objective nonetheless. Similarly, people disagree about morals but morality is still objective. If you think otherwise, you need to find a real reason.<br /><br /><i>your particular deity of choice represents only one possible "Ultimate Being" out of the many possible "Ultimate Beings".</i><br /><br />Um, no. Once again, that indicates that you don't comprehend the concepts. People may disagree about the nature of the Ultimate Being, but that does not entail multiple "ultimate" beings. If you don't understand the difference between the Ultimate Being and (possible) attributes of that Being, you will not understand anything that follows.<br /><br /><i>"A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject."<br />Does that definitions suffice? </i><br /><br />It's not unreasonable for a definition of "objectively true", referring to propositions. It gets at the key notion of "mind-independence", although loosely (counter-examples to the way it's phrased are obvious). It suffices to show, say, that change is no problem for objectivity (Is there change independent of your mind? Of course), or that cultural variation is a different matter (Does your opinion of something depend on your mind? Of course.)<br /><br /><i>Is slavery moral or immoral independent of the beliefs of the people involved? </i><br /><br />Of course it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6208834967321028532011-11-27T23:57:44.018-08:002011-11-27T23:57:44.018-08:00All who, without commission from God, dare to exec...All who, without commission from God, dare to execute private revenge, and who, from ambition, covetousness, or resentment, wage war and desolate kingdoms, must one day answer for it. But if God, instead of sending an earthquake, a pestilence, or a famine, be pleased to authorize and command any people to avenge His cause, such a commission surely is just and right. The Israelites could show such a commission, though no persons now can do so. Their wars were begun and carried on expressly by Divine direction, and they were enabled to conquer by miracles. Unless it can be proved that the wicked Canaanites did not deserve their doom, objectors only prove their dislike to God, and their love to his enemies. Man makes light of the evil of sin, but God abhors it. This explains the terrible executions of the nations which had filled the measure of their sins.<br /><br />-Matthew Henry Commentary on NumbersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com