Atheists and Foxholes

You should edit this a bit and send it around to some newspapers, etc. as an editorial contribution. It’s worthy of being published, and it might change some minds.

I suspect that few of the “conservatives” railing against taxpayer-subsidized health care have contemplated how vulnerable we all are.

Even if you’re employed and well-insured… what if you wake up tomorrow with a cancer or other condition that saps you of your energy and your ability to work? Sure, you can go on COBRA, for a while, at your own expense… but eligibility for COBRA doesn’t last forever. If your condition still requires care, you’ll be on your own, with no insurance and no possibility of getting it. You’ve been out of work and you won’t be at the top of anybody’s list to hire. What if your non-working spouse then becomes ill? How quickly will your life savings be sucked down the drain? Will you still be so holier-than-thou at that point?

If we are a society of caring people – Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, non-religious, or none-of-the-above – do we not have a responsibility to care for our brothers and sisters in their times of need, and to expect them to do the same for us? Can we not take a small fraction of our bountiful resources as a nation to ensure that nobody is forced onto the streets simply because they got sick?

Once again, I am left with the sad conclusion that the Republican party is the party of selfishness and uncaring. And of course, it’s not only the Republicans, but they seem to have the strongest sense of “I’ve got mine, so I don’t have to care about anyone else.”

Why A Strong Public Option Is Essential – By jacksmith — Working Class

Robert Reich explains the pubic option: http://bit.ly/dDYSJ http://robertreich.blogspot.com/

John Garamendi on the Public Option and the Grassroots: http://bit.ly/TJMty

It’s not just because more than two thirds of the American people want a single payer health care system. And if they cant have a single payer system 77% of all Americans want a strong government-run public option on day one (86% of democrats, 75% of independents, and 72% republicans). Basically everyone.

It’s not just because according to a new AARP POLL: 86 percent of seniors want universal healthcare security for All, including 93% of Democrats, 87% of Independents, and 78% of Republicans. With 79% of seniors supporting creating a new strong Government-run public option plan, available immediately. Including 89% of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 61% of Republicans, STUNNING!!

It’s not just because it will lower cost. Because a strong public option will dramatically lower cost for everyone. And dramatically improved the quality of care everyone receives in America and around the World. Rich, middle class, and poor a like.

It’s not just because it will save trillions of dollars and prevent the needless deaths of millions more of YOU, caused by a rush to profit by the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!

It’s not just because every expert in every field, including economist, and Nobel laureates all agree that free market based healthcare systems don’t work. Never have and never will. The US has the only truly free market based healthcare system in the World. And as you all know now, IT IS A DISASTER!

It’s not just because providing or denying medically necessary care for profit motivations is wrong. Because it is WRONG! It’s professionally, ethically, and morally REPUGNANT!, Animalistic, VILE and EVIL.

THE REASON THE PUBLIC OPTION IS ESSENTIAL:

The public option is ESSENTIAL because over 200 million of you are trapped in the forest of the wolves. Which is the forest of the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! With no way out except through needless inhumane suffering, and DEATH. While the wolves tear at your flesh, and rip you limb from lib. Then feast on your lifeless bodies like a dead carcase for transplant parts.

At the most vulnerable times of your lives (when you were sick and hurting), millions of you have had to fight and loose cruel, but heroic battles. Fighting against the big guns of the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! in the forest of the wolves. All because you have no place else to go. You have no other CHOICE!

But the PUBLIC OPTION will give you someplace safe to go. And it will give us someplace safe to take you. The public option will be your refugium (your refuge). Where the wolves cannot get at you when your down, hurting, and vulnerable. Where everyone who needs it can find rest, security, comfort and the care they need. Protected by the BIG GUNS of We The People Of The United States. THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE AND COUNTRY ON EARTH.

This is why it is so critical that we do not lead another 50 million vulnerable, uninsured Americans into the forest of the wolves, without the protections of a Strong Government-run public option. We The People Of The United States MUST NOT LET THAT HAPPEN to any more of our fellow Americans. If healthcare reform does not contain a strong public option on day one. YOU MUST! KILL IT. Or you will do far more harm than good. And millions more will die needlessly. Rich, middle class, and poor a like.

To those who would continue to obstruct good and true healthcare reform for the American people, and who seek to trap millions more vulnerable Americans in the forest of the wolves. We will continue to fight you. We are prepared to wage all out war against you, and will eagerly DESTROY! you. Time…is…UP! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! No Co-op’s! No Triggers! NO INDIVIDUAL MANDATES! without a Strong public option on day one.

Healthcare reform can be the GREATEST! Accomplishment of our time and century. A time when future generations may say of us, that we were all, AMERICAS GREATEST GENERATIONS.

BUT WE MUST ACT!

I therefore call on all my fellow Americans and the peoples of the World. To join us in this fight so that we may finish becoming the better America that we aspire to be for everyone.

SPREAD THE WORD!

I have been privileged to be witness as many of you fought, and struggled to take your first breath, and your last breath on this earth. Rich, middle class, and poor a like. Life is precious.

Whatever the cost. WE! MUST SUCCEED.

God Bless You My Fellow Human Beings

jacksmith — Working Class

No Triggers! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenbaum/a-trigger-for-the-public_b_277910.html

Triggers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/weve-seen-these-triggers_b_283583.html

Krugman on heathcare (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)

Senator Bernie Sanders on healthcare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSM8t_cLZgk&feature=player_embedded)

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives..

If conservatives don’t like guns, they don’t buy one. If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.

If conservatives are vegetarian, they don’t eat meat. If liberals are, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys his life. If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. A liberal wants all churches to be silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that his neighbors (government) pay for his.

I will add one to this:
If a conservative doesn’t like a book, s/he will insist that the bookstores stop selling them, and if they are in a library, they will be burned.

“They have decided my friends should die because a public option looks too much like “socialism.” Palin, Beck, Grassely, the right wing… perhaps even you have collectively decided the fate of hundreds of thousands of people. Fathers, mothers, lovers, children, friends, conservative, liberal, black, white, brown, Catholic, Jewish, atheists, hippies, politicians, surgeons, trash collectors. You and me.

You might want to schedule just a little extra time at the wash basin tonight before you try to sleep. Blood is so very difficult to wash off.”

Garbage. This is what happens when you let your emotions rule your thinking process. Garbage.

I never put anything on the table, Ok. Read my comments willy and you’ll see that I addressed that. I told you… (do I have to type all this out again?)

America will lose its greatness if it turns to socialism. If you want to know exactly what makes america great then just read your last responses to me about ie being the only nation capable of leading the world to a truly civilized society.

I put substance on the table Willy. Arguments that you can address line by line. What else do you want? You’re the one who evades core issues and does the dancing. How many times did I have to ask you to address your statement about what qualifies america to lead the world in civility?

I fully addressed the healthcare issue from both sides and without excessive emotion or bias. You discredit yourself when you refuse to acknowledge that I’ve made any real arguments.

The problem is that you and Perk (and some others here) see the world in black and white as Perk loves to say. My arguments were completely sound but you disagree with my conclusions. Therefore it’s not substantive. See? That’s black and white isn’t it? If the conclusion doesn’t fit your version of the truth then it’s all just…junk.

I guess that’s why perk and others turn to ridicule. No substantive ideas of his own.

Perk, “The reason you deserve and receive ridicule is because you want to argue something that is not so.”

Are we not arguing subjective positions? How can you say that my opinion is “not so” ???

This is actually quite interesting and revealing. On this blog we have argued moral issues through the prism of politics. We’ve argued moral positions in regards to just about everything from affirmative action, abortion, gay rights and so on.

Even the health care debate with willy was a moral debate that touched on the moral abominations caused by greedy corporations, the necessity of the gov’t to identify and correct such situations and how it relates to one’s right to pursue happiness. Indeed moral issues are our main battleground.

What is interesting is that you classify my take on morals as ‘not so.’ I’m wrong about moral issues. That’s what we debate over so that must be what I’m wrong about. I believe things are “So” when you say they are simply “not so.” For this I deserve ridicule. Because my moral judgments aren’t SO. They are LIES, as in NOT TRUE. Where as your moral judgments are TRUE.

I get it.

You view morality as something that is either true (white) or not true (black). You are not a moral relativist (all colors between white and black).

I have a couple of questions for you:

1. How do you know your version of morality is “SO” and mine is, “Not So?”

2. Can you give me an example of me being on the wrong side of a moral argument?

3. Why is it OK to ridicule me because my morals aren’t the same as your?

Please explain.

“There have only been a handful of people on this blog that have pushed a moralistic point of view and a black and white point of view: it’s you, Trent, Nash and a guy from a long time ago I don’t even remember… Lupus or something. Remember discussions about marriage? Or the fundamental notions of right and wrong? That was all you man.”

Well you judged my morals when you said I argue things that aren’t true. These have not been one sided moral arguments. I can’t argue morals by myself right? So you are not exempt from this moral argument issue. The very fact that you have called me selfish (because I don’t believe in socialism) is a moral judgment itself!

“I have extraordinarily high standards by which I live… and I demand them of no one else except my children.”

By what standard to you measure your morals then? If there IS NO STANDARD then how you can say you have a HIGH moral standard?

You took the opposite side in the very controversial moral issue of gay rights. That’s you projecting your morality on me. Even when you say it’s “wrong” for me to “push” my morals, you are making a moral judgment.

People should push their morals on others? Then why do you push yours on me? Telling me I shouldn’t judge other people, condemn others etc…when you condemn me?

No reverse argument here perk. And by the way, find a more articulate way to express yourself in regards to this whole reverse argument thing. That’s not an adequate description. Not picking on you right now perk, just blathering a little.

@ Healthcare

I agree and disagree with you but at least you actually offered an intelligent perspective, instead of ridicule. I don’t mind being ridiculed but it’s just a waste of time really. Juvenile and below you perk.

High moral standards?
You impose your morals on me.

Address these issues that I alluded to above.

Perk

“As someone coming from a right-wing perspective (note the carefully worded and politically correct structure so as not to offend you)”roflmao:

Thanks Perk, I appreciate it. That was actually quite funny. However, I must now feed you to my dogs.:D

“Did you actually read my post Edgar? Did you put together my concepts and think about them, or just simply respond out of hand?”

I think you just don’t realize when I address your the core of your arguments.

“high moral standard: I never said I don’t have a moral standard. I said I have one BY ME, FOR ME.”

No, you said you have a HIGH MORAL STANDARD. So now that we have THAT straight I ask you again: How do you know your moral standard is high? Against WHAT do you measure it?

When you say, “I am rich” you must measure that against someone or something else. You don’t just look at your own wealth in a vacuum and decide that your are rich.

If you deny that an OBJECTIVE moral standard exists then how can you measure YOUR morals?

“But it is my right and responsibility to say that YOUR version of morals should not be pushed upon other people, particularly ME”

Sounds like a moral absolute coming from a moral relativist ie Perk says, “Never say P” Perk then says, “P.” You are not a very consistent moral relativist.

“I’m not making a moral judgement upon you re. gay rights: I’m saying that people should be able to do what they want within the framework of their own morals.”

Uh, that’s a MORAL judgment you silly liberal. “People should be able to do (do, as in behavior – a moral realm) what they want…”

Again Perk you impose your morality on ME. Let’s look at your version of morality and see how logic applies to it. Once more,

“I’m not making a moral judgement upon you re. gay rights: I’m saying that people should be able to do what they want within the framework of their own morals.”

OK, so Hitler was moral then. Glad to see you thought this through Perk.

“When I say “Live and let live” and you say “They should not be married” whom, exactly, is doing the push upon whom?”

We are both pushing equally!!! It’s a tug of war argument around morality. Your moral standards are more permissive than mine and we argue where the moral line should be drawn, together. I say the moral line should be drawn HERE and you say it should be drawn where YOU see fit.

“I argue with you because you’re stuck thinking that your values are superior to others.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You constantly correct my morals because you think your morals are superior! You think I should have a more permissive moral outlook, a more tolerant one. You think my morality suffers from intolerance, unlike YOU. See? You think your morals are superior to mine and you therefore go about trying to shove your morals down my throat.

“You’ll argue that I see mine as superior – but we are talking apples and oranges here.”

APPLES AND ORANGES! Give me a break!! Whenever anything makes too much sense it’s always APPLES AND ORANGES. Condemning me for being selfish and intolerant is not a moral judgment right? Nope! It’s APPLES AND ORANGES. What a tired old cliche.

“If I assert that it’s everyone’s right to make their own value structure, I am not making a moral argument – I’m making a freedom and liberty argument.”

Perk, if you assert that it’s everyone’s right to make their own value structure you are presupposing that there is no real OBJECTIVE morality.

You can’t claim that it’s anyone’s right to make their own value structure unless you can show FIRST that such a possibility even exists. You must first show that Objective Morality does not exist. Only then can we argue about whether or not individuals have the RIGHT to create their own moral vs the gov’t, church, elders, teachers etc… This is the tail wagging the dog.

Where do Objective Moral values come from? God, which is the classic response. If God doesn’t exist then object moral values don’t exist. See where this is heading? If you claim that objective moral values do not exist then by default you claim that God does not exist. Are you making that claim?

If you allow for the possibility of the existence of God (do you?)then you must allow for the possibility of the existence of objective moral values. I think you DO sense objective morality just the same as any other person whether theistic or non-theistic. I think that is why you feel you have a high standard of morality.

If I were a naturalist/materialist I would say that you were deluded Perk. Deluded because you have duped yourself into believing that what you sense as a high moral standard is in fact just a subconscious illusion of a socio-biological byproduct of evolution, in which case there IS no such thing as morality at all.

Finally, you should resist the urge to correct me when I want to push MY morals on YOU. Yes I’m serious. How can I say that with a straight face? Because according to your logic I should be able to have my own moral system as I see fit, and in my version of morality it’s OK for me to lecture others on morality. So dig it brotha!

Willy

Your last response was completely irrelevant. There are a couple of major problems, one being you misquoted me, the other being that you are defending against the wrong argument.

“Edgar,
You just pigeonholed yourself when you said that without a belief in god there is no objective moral judgement.”

You must have missed this Professor, “I think you(Perk) DO sense objective morality just the same as any other person whether theistic or non-theistic.”

So not only did you misquote me but we actually AGREE! Here’s what I actually said, “If God doesn’t exist then object moral values don’t exist.”

Another quote from above, “If you claim that objective moral values do not exist then by default you claim that God does not exist.”

So you see now Willy that we actually agree thus far. We both agree that we, “DO sense objective morality just the same as any other person whether theistic or non-theistic.” My argument is NOT that one needs to believe in God to live, act, sense, feel or understand morality. I think theists, atheists, agnostics, people of different religions and everyone else can and do know morals and live by them.

If Objective Moral Values do not exist then God does not exist. Willy, this is a view commonly held by many prominent atheists, Richard Dawkins being one of note, look it up.

I consider the existence of objective moral values as evidence for the existence of God. I think we all sense that objective moral values do exist. Some things are really wrong like raping and abusing little children. Such things are not merely social disadvantageous, they are moral abominations and we all know it.

If you believe that social conditioning over many thousands of years is the reason we consider it immoral to rape children, then there’s nothing really Objectively WRONG with raping little children. On the atheistic view morals are just an illusion. What we sense as morals are just socio-biological adaptations, a byproduct of evolution. There is no REAL right and wrong. so,

1. If there is no REAL right and wrong then
2. Raping little children isn’t REALLY wrong.

But we know it’s wrong, REALLY wrong, and therefore we know that objective moral values do indeed exist. Again, this is not to say that one must believe in God to act morally. Just look at all the priests who have raped little children.

This is about the existence of objective moral values. For OMV to exist there needs to be some kind of transcendental foundation by which we can ground our objectivity. For instance, Perk can’t claim that he has high moral standards unless OMV exist.

Edgar: “I consider the existence of objective moral values as evidence for the existence of God. I think we all sense that objective moral values do exist. Some things are really wrong like raping and abusing little children. Such things are not merely social disadvantageous, they are moral abominations and we all know it.”

First of all, define “God.” I assume you refer to a Judo/Christian/Islamic or Abrahamic based philosophy. To look at those religious tenets and presume that they lay down a structure for morality or even a coherent notion of “god” is fallacious; certainly for a 21st century context.

Although those three religions spring from the same origin, namely “Father Abraham,” the moral codes laid down in their tenets are not consistent, logical, or at all operational in a culture 5,000 years in the future of their origin. Their picture of “god” is one of a terrible, jealous, peevish and vengeful one. However, if you broaden the definition of “God,” you find an even wider divergence in morality. Whether you speak of western or eastern philosophy, the idea of morality is one that is constantly in flux. It seems that “God,” however you cast him/her/it, never seems to make up its mind and stick to an “established” value.

Biology however, does establish “moral” codes, or really modus operandi that change with the vicissitudes of existence as that specific species. As species develop, their ways of relating to the reality of their existence develop and range through the species. Some animal cultures the apes for example have strong “codes” of conduct in their relationship to family, outsiders, and perversion of those rules. When the conditions of existence change for those species however, the rules change to adjust to the new conditions; sometimes for a positive result, sometimes not. Natural selection is not a perfect process. Check out Dianne Fosse’s work for that information.

Under most of religious-based philosophies, man is given rule over nature. I wonder how that was decided? But, even with that “spiritual” conveyance of power over the world, the rules have, by necessity, changed. Let’s look at the Bible, for example.

You say that, concerning things like child rape, incest, etc., “But we know it’s wrong, REALLY wrong, and therefore we know that objective moral values do indeed exist.” However, in the big book of moral values, if you read Genesis, you find that Lott decides, in order to avoid the “angels of God” getting beaten up, or worse, that he will offer his daughters to the crowd in Sodom to “do with as they please.” Some morality there. I doubt that it would hold up in our culture today, but perhaps in rural Afganistan it might. God sanctions slavery in the old testament, and the heritage of Abraham was created by the incestuous relationship between Lott and his daughters. These values are totally devoid of sanction in the west, but in Africa and other places on the globe, they are quite normal. The good book also says that to eat shell fish is a mortal sin (when’s the last time you had a shrimp salad?), and a wife or child who is not obedient must be taken down to the edge of town and stoned. You cannot deny that what you consider moral objectivity is a myth. Since we crawled out of the premordial mud, our rules have constantly been in flux.

Edgar, all societal morality is relative. The idea of a universal, objective moral code is bulsh. It cannot hold up under the pressure of change that is natural and unavoidable. However, a person can have his/her own moral code that he/she lives by that is inviolable. Additionally, a culture develops its ways of living as a group that affords the greatest freedom to the individual, or that restricts the individual to the betterment of a select group (ie: royalty, the priesthood, Rush Limbaugh, Edgar, etc. Sorry, I couldn’t resist!). There is a relative value in the comparison of the two systems. There can be no doubt that the former is stronger than the latter, because it allows the most flexibility to the greatest group. You see, the former allows the select group to have its values as they define them, unless they infringe upon the rights of the others. A man or a woman can love and marry whomever he/she chooses, but no man or woman is forced to marry someone that they choose out. Your value system is one that closes out the rights of selected others, while the former system does less of that. I agree that there is a time when the greater need of the larger group will supersede the needs of the select group (ie: income taxes, hate legislation, etc.). That is where the idea of democracy, or republic in our case come into play. The reigning philosophy today is one of democratic themes and an attempt to lesson the pyramid concept of wealth and power. There is where I am sure we disagree most.

Willy,

So you agree with me! If objective moral values do not exist then God does not exist. Good.

1. “First of all, define “God.” ”

Ok, God is a timeless, immaterial, spaceless being who created the universe and provides the foundation of objective morality. There.

2. “To look at those religious tenets and presume that they lay down a structure for morality or even a coherent notion of “god” is fallacious; certainly for a 21st century context.”

You are on the wrong track because I made no mention nor inference of any religious tenets at all. All the religions could vanish tomorrow and objective moral values would still exist. So your argument there fails to address the core issue.

3. “Although those three religions spring from the same origin, namely “Father Abraham,” the moral codes laid down in their tenets are not consistent, logical, or at all operational in a culture 5,000 years in the future of their origin.”

Once again, objective moral values do not spring from religion and I never claimed they did. Religion, which is man made, seeks to understand God, and by extension, objective moral values, which existed before religion. Existence precedes essence. This debate is about existence, existence of objective moral values and not the various interpretations constructed by the different religions.

So you are off point again willy. You are attacking religion as if I said that objective moral values came from religion.

4. “Whether you speak of western or eastern philosophy, the idea of morality is one that is constantly in flux. It seems that “God,” however you cast him/her/it, never seems to make up its mind and stick to an “established” value.”

I’m not talking about the “idea of morality.” I’m talking about the very existence of objective moral values. Ideas change, objective values do not change. I’m not debating the history of moral ideas.

You consistently defend against arguments, weak arguments mind you, that I never made!

5. “Biology however, does establish “moral” codes, or really modus operandi that change with the vicissitudes of existence as that specific species. As species develop, their ways of relating to the reality of their existence develop and range through the species. Some animal cultures the apes for example have strong “codes” of conduct in their relationship to family, outsiders, and perversion of those rules. When the conditions of existence change for those species however, the rules change to adjust to the new conditions; sometimes for a positive result, sometimes not. Natural selection is not a perfect process. Check out Dianne Fosse’s work for that information.”

OK, now you are back on topic! So you’ve finally committed yourself to the naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic point of view. I already articulated this point of view, “On the atheistic view morals are just an illusion. What we sense as morals are just socio-biological adaptations, a byproduct of evolution. There is no REAL right and wrong.”

So you see that you are saying what I’ve already said. That means you agree with me. Explaining how atheists view morality was really unnecessary as I already explained it. But thanks for clarifying your position.

Your position is that objective moral values do not exist. Correct? That must be correct because you added, “Edgar, all societal morality is relative. The idea of a universal, objective moral code is bulsh.”

So even though you thought you wanted to argue with me, you ended up agreeing with me.

6. “However, in the big book of moral values, if you read Genesis, you find that Lott decides, in order to avoid the “angels of God” getting beaten up, or worse, that he will offer his daughters to the crowd in Sodom to “do with as they please.” Some morality there.”

Willy, you are off the mark again here. Our debate is not about biblical inerrancy. Our debate is not about how christians interpret objective morality. The debate is about the existence of objective morality.

My premise if you remember correctly was, “If objective moral values do not exist then God does not exist” and we can reason as follows:

1. If OMV do not exist god does not exist.
2. OMV do exist therefore
3. God exists.

I’ll continue in the next post.

@willy

7. “a culture develops its ways of living as a group that affords the greatest freedom to the individual, or that restricts the individual to the betterment of a select group (ie: royalty, the priesthood, Rush Limbaugh, Edgar, etc. Sorry, I couldn’t resist!). There is a relative value in the comparison of the two systems. There can be no doubt that the former is stronger than the latter, because it allows the most flexibility to the greatest group.”

Why do you explain social conditioning to me when I’ve already shown that I’m familiar with the concept:

“If you believe that social conditioning over many thousands of years is the reason we consider it immoral to rape children, then there’s nothing really Objectively WRONG with raping little children. On the atheistic view morals are just an illusion. What we sense as morals are just socio-biological adaptations, a byproduct of evolution. There is no REAL right and wrong.”

I’m glad that you quit avoiding the commitment here, namely, that you commit to the idea that objective moral values do not exist.

If OBJECTIVE moral values do not exist then there is no OBJECTIVE right and wrong. We can now reason thus:

1. If OMV do not exist then
2. Raping little children is not OBJECTIVElY wrong.

It may be socially disadvantageous but not OBJECTIVELY wrong.

If everything is relative then imagine this scenario:

Islamic terrorists manage to actually kill everyone on earth who doesn’t believe in Islam. The only people left are fanatical muslims. In that “New” world can we STILL say that it was OBJECTIVELY wrong to kill all non believers?

I think we can agree that it would still be objectively wrong. I think we all experience the reality of objective moral values much like we experience the objective reality around us. Why should we deny our experience of OMV anymore than our experience of reality?

If someone were to murder your entire family how would you feel? Would you feel that it was REALLY wrong? Or would you feel that your grief is just a socially learned behavior? I think you would feel that it was REALLY OBJECTIVELY wrong!

Finally, you’ve been forced to agree with me when I said that if OMV don’t exist then God doesn’t exist.

Thank you.

Edgar,
I disagree with your premise of OMV. Your premise is that an objective moral value is set and unchangeable. That is a very rigid and really unworkable concept. 5,000 years ago or earlier, when a concept of god was first envisioned, it was believed that the world was flat, dragons and monsters walked the earth, women were merely property, slavery was the natural order, and disease was an act of god. Almost none of the values of the past are truly workable today.

What I see as an OMV is an objective world view of now and how to effectively and compassionately deal with that reality. Now that sounds like relativism, but actually it is not. Generally speaking relativism is based purely on the concept of what works for me now, regardless of the affect on others around me. It tends to be selfish, greedy and short sighted. However, an OMV in my definition means that we look at the world and maneuver through it in such a way as to be both successful and contributive to a positive growth and development of the people and creatures in the world at that moment. That, and really not much more than that, is the only “value” that I hold from the philosophers and past cultures that have come before.

No matter how we look at history, culture, or precedence, the only moment that we really have is “now.” When you read this, this moment will be long gone for me, but current for you. The moments that have come before are untouchable, but those to come may or may not be more positive for those living in it, depending upon the choices that you or I make in our respective “now moments.” The value of what we do will be judged “objectively” by the experiential result of our action/life.

“I have proven it, inescapably! God provides the transcendental foundation by which we can ground OMV’s! Without a transcendental foundation moral values would be relative necessarily.” In a strange way we agree. With or without a “transcendental foundation” (which I reject out of hand), moral values are relative, necessarily.

You haven’t “proven it, inescapably,” however. Rather, you have demonstrated a certain penchant for being stuck in a paradigm that limits and confines you. In my opinion, this is a major reason that conservatives have crashed upon the cultural rocks today and find their ship sinking fast. You are caught in a maelstrom with no map, no constructive ideas for success, and no paddle for escape. You’ve got to get an oar, big guy!

Willy,

“With or without a “transcendental foundation” (which I reject out of hand), moral values are relative, necessarily.”

No willy, our perceptions may be relative but not what is being perceived. If OMV are grounded in God, a transcendent foundation, then they are not relative. On the other hand if morals are really just the result of social evolution then they don’t really exist at all, it’s just learned behavior and neither right or wrong, objectively.

But we all know that torturing a baby for fun is much more than just socially disadvantageous, it’s a moral abomination, wouldn’t you agree?

Willy, a short comment

“Rather, you have demonstrated a certain penchant for being stuck in a paradigm that limits and confines you. In my opinion, this is a major reason that conservatives have crashed upon the cultural rocks today and find their ship sinking fast.”

My argument here is supported by atheists too. For instance many atheists agree with my first premise, deny the existence of God and therefore conclude that OMV do not exist.

Many atheists agree with my second premise that OMV do exist. They try to salvage the idea that OMV can exist but without God. Some say they JUST EXIST, others (humanists) say that OMV originate in mans thoughts but find it impossible to justify calling them objective.

The logic of my argument is completely valid. That is inarguable. In order to prove me wrong you need to show that one of the two premises are false, because the conclusion follows naturally and as I said before, inescapably.

Willy,

“Why would god not exist without OMV? How, necessarily, are OMV coexistant with god?”

God as a concept is the greatest possible being. If you can imagine a greater one then THAT is God etc… God as the greatest possible being is the ground of objective moral values, love, compassion, mercy and so on.

Objective Moral values can’t exist without God, they entail his existence. Yet objective moral values exist; therefore God exists. God, as the creator of the universe is the creator of OMV.

Objective moral values implies the existence of God does it not? If God doesn’t exist then how can moral values be objective?

I will define some terms for you so we can keep this debate on course.

“Again, I can’t see this discussion going any further without your defining your terms, especially “god.”

Perhaps you missed this Professor but I defined God when you asked me to earlier, comment #30, “God is a timeless, immaterial, spaceless being who created the universe and provides the foundation of objective morality.”

Again, maybe you missed that. Perhaps that’s the reason you don’t see the logic in the argument. If I didn’t include the foundation of OMV in my definition I would simply state the argument as follows:

1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist
2. OMV do exist
3. God exists.

Edgar,
“God as a concept is the greatest possible being. If you can imagine a greater one then THAT is God etc… God as the greatest possible being is the ground of objective moral values, love, compassion, mercy and so on.
Objective Moral values can’t exist without God, they entail his existence. Yet objective moral values exist; therefore God exists. God, as the creator of the universe is the creator of OMV.
Objective moral values implies the existence of God does it not? If God doesn’t exist then how can moral values be objective?”

I understand your view of the necessity of “god.” However, by utilizing overarching language like “the greatest possible,” you provide your, and I grant you many of the old philosopher’s framework for a supreme being as the guiding force for our sense of morality. However, that definition is, on its face, a resignation. If I can’t imagine anything greater, then that must be god. Perhaps, but is it not just as possible that the forces which drive us are much closer to home than some timeless, undefinable, imagination-based and thus culturally manipulatable “being?” Your definition and defense simply say that beyond this point, it can only be god. That may be so, as not having the egotism of an atheist, I cannot stand in certain consideration and say it is or isn’t so. But actually, your definition cannot either. The Greeks believed god(s) to be on top of Mt. Olympus, in the Bible, Yaweh was in the burning bush and able to compel a snake to speak. By the limits of our understanding of the objective world, we define god as being on the other side watching and evaluating. But science keeps pushing those boundaries back. There still may be a “god,” but his/her/it’s presence is far more removed than those gods of time gone by. Thus, in my estimation, timeless OMVs really are not possible beyond my two (and you keep neglecting the second), compassion and CONTRIBUTION.

You see Edgar, I believe that the most powerful force in the universe that I perceive is the need to survive. Death is the great equalizer and the real boundary of the known and unknown. Death is the force that really defines our relationship with the struggle that we undergo between our birth and the end. How we relate to that struggle, how we define our personal world really actively demonstrates our “moral” commitments. The reason that I have but two OMVs is that they, over any other that I can perceive are the ones that lift us above the simple struggle and make possible the refinement of our personal and collective cultures.

When we have compassion and make CONTRIBUTIONs to our personal and collective culture, we personally transcend the basic impulses to merely survive and step into the realm of evaluating our own survival as being less important than a greater concept, that being family, community, country, etc. Why do we speak of “heros?” It is because of this commitment to more than self. One’s basic impulse is to survive above all else, but at that moment of choice between self and the greater self or group, the survival of one is less impending than that of the larger. You have to admit that. It is the basis for human evaluation of the acts of others and self throughout the ages.

But at the base of this is the personal choice that is made. The lesser person makes the choice for self over the larger, while the greater person sets self aside in his/her sense of compassion for the moment, and contributes (up to and including the loss of one’s individual survival) to the value of the larger. Historically, we have judged ourselves on the comparison to those who have, out of compassion for others and in contribution to the greater whole, have given their lives to facilitate the progression of the family/culture/species. Objectively, God in my opinion, has little or nothing to do with it. The situation is placed before the individual and he/she makes a choice to either make the contribution, or shrink back from it. The culture defines that as heroism or cowardice.

It is because of this that the OMV is a moving target. It changes as the situation does. 100 years ago, the man stood at the door and took the actual spear/arrow for the survival of his larger (family, child, wife), or shrank back and saved himself. In war, the soldier puts his life on the line for country, and more specifically, for the men to his left and right, or doesn’t. The overriding value however, is not some esoteric “god,” it is the basic instinct of life versus death.

And here, my dear Edgar, is where our politics enter in. It is in the world view of the progressive/liberal to read and consider the current world experience and evaluate in terms of the potential for greater survivability of the “larger” or common denomination of humanity. While the conservative appears to evaluate the world on the basis of stifling and unbending rules of conduct, relative value, hierarchy, or status quo, personal security vs contribution to the whole, the liberal is constantly refining his/her perception of the world on the basis of the larger need, the bringing of the larger quantity of the community into a more equal and safe/comfortable/viable state of being. That takes compassion and personal contribution. The greater society therefore is the one with the greater sense of collective compassion and CONTRIBUTION to the well being of the whole.

Therefore, Edgar, I am not a theist or a relativist, I am a collectivist. I believe in the value of the whole moving forward as opposed to the individual getting what he/she can and screwing the rest.

Edgar, I never said that OMV don’t exist. I said that OMVs adjust however, with the changes that present themselves to a developing human experience. Compassion and contribution are timeless, but are not caught in a matrix of absolute rules and restrictive world views. There may or may not be a god, but he/she/it has nothing to do with the viability of my OMV.

Edgar, “Objective”
“of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind”
This is what gives meaning to the term OMV. You are trying to strip out the attributes of the word ‘objective’ so as to change its meaning. When you say that OBJECTIVE moral values,
“adjust however, with the changes that present themselves to a developing human experience”

There is no contradiction in my stating that an “objective moral CODE is bulsh.” You see, what you wish me to concede is that there is a structure of moral evaluation that comes down from the mountaintop, cut in stone, and given to humans to follow forever. That view is structured with “shoulds, shouldn’ts, can’ts, don’ts, and, rarely cans and dos.”

I did state that the only two qualities that I recognize as OMVs are compassion and CONTRIBUTION. I recognize them as such, not because they have some metaphysical origin, but because they are the only two qualities that I can identify as traits that have caused humanity to move forward; to flexibly administer as the situation calls for it. It is not superstition that drives these qualities in man’s consciousness, but the realization of the process of moving forward as a society, family, or species.

it is in that process of moving forward that these qualities move and change with the peculiarities of time and space. Additionally, they are qualities that lend themselves most strongly to the concept of now. One can neither think back or forward toward an act of heroism. It presents itself and one either grasps it, no matter the cost, or not.

Your perception of objective seems to be one of static, impenetrable rules that never change, adjust, or evolve. They are immortal, immutable, and simply put, set in stone by some force that is above and beyond our comprehension. If that is your matrix, I accept it, for you. However, it is interesting that you keep harping on compassion and never deign to acknowledge CONTRIBUTION. It doesn’t surprise me, as I have rarely met a conservative who really embraced the concept.

Compassion and CONTRIBUTION are truly concepts built out of the process of perception. In history, we often see that major steps forward in the human experience have been made by either a new mechanical/physical discovery, ie: iron over copper, the wheel, the airplane, splitting the atom, vaccinations, etc., or through the acknowledgment of a more intrinsic need ie: freedom, equality, basic rights that belong to every person rather than just to those who can afford them. The former has moved society forward in a basic, physical manner that often bodes great possibility, but often creates a more dangerous, fatal, and vicious existence. The latter, however, has tended to purify, uplift, and inspire our existence. When the wheel was invented, it had a great potential to improve man’s life, but also created far more deadly and barbaric forms of killing and maiming. When Gandhi walked to the sea to make salt, however, his actions inspired the Indian people and demonstrated to the English that humanity possesses a quality for rising above the merely physical and enslaving, to envision a greater possibility than they had yet seen.

Now you will say I presume, that god inspired Gandhi. Ok, if that satisfies you, then believe that. However, it is in that aesthetic that human progress has often been stopped, distorted, and put on halt. To me, the idea that OMV have come from god really diminishes both a concept of god and the potential of man.

“If, as you say, compassion is timeless (and I agree it is) then it certainly transcends the human situation which is NOT timeless. But if compassion is timeless then, on an atheistic point of view, what is that timeless foundation in which compassion exists?”

Compassion and CONTRIBUTION are timeless, in that they are qualities that emerged in the human experience as man evolved and his society allowed him to focus on them as a concept. In your writing you often use the word “feel,” or “instinctively sense.” I don’t know if the sense of positive over negative is instinctive or not, but it certainly does feel better. I don’t know this to be true, but I can envision a moment in the Neolithic era when cave men discovered the positive “feeling” of giving over simply keeping for self. I prefer to think that the “discovery” of compassion and contribution evolved in the human ascension, along with the development of tools and other human qualities that we accumulated. Just because the concept of something has history does not require that its origin is god.

Not only have you been unable to correct my “mishandling” of the word obsession, but you demonstrate your own immobility, your inability to acknowledge the need to utilize new ideas with a reshaping of my OMVs. I don’t know your business Edgar, but I’d bet it is heavily grounded in deeply “objective” reality. I would be surprised to find that your work required you to be flexible, open to change, or humane over simple reality. It’s just an impression, not an insult.

Willy,

“However, it is interesting that you keep harping on compassion and never deign to acknowledge CONTRIBUTION. ”

I didn’t realize contribution was a moral value. You consider contribution to be an objective moral good like compassion? What about contributing to the delinquency of a minor?

What about contributing funds to a terrorist organization? What about the CONTRIBUTION that the Nazi’s made to the history of mankind? Compassion is a moral good but I would have to say that contribution is amoral.

“There is no contradiction in my stating that an “objective moral CODE is bulsh.” You see, what you wish me to concede is that there is a structure of moral evaluation that comes down from the mountaintop, cut in stone, and given to humans to follow forever.”

No, I want you to concede that the word objective means what it means, namely, independent of the mind, existing in reality independent from what we believe.

Now Willy, think about the dictionary definition of objective and tell me if you believe that OMV do exist.

Don’t redefine objective, just go with the dictionary (read NORMAL) definition of the word ie with the quality of being independent.

If you believe that OMV (not the Willy version of objective but rather the dictionary version)exist then we will move on to argue the other premise. Right now you are stuck because you are trying to redefine the word objective!

Next thing you know you’ll be telling me that the DICTIONARY is wrong!

Come on, get on with it already. DO you or do you not believe that OMV exist?

Willy,

Once again you are just plain wrong:

” I see you haven’t left the right’s technique of selecting the information that they feel supports their position and ignoring that which does not. I agree that the first definition old Marion uses is the “Medieval (her term)” one. But you neglected to mention the additional ones that mitigate that antiquarian definition.

Quoting on from Marion:
“of, relating to, or being an object phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers . . . involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena…”

We all can play that game, but I must say I am not surprised that you chose the Medieval definition.”

I knew you would say that if I DID choose the definition that included the word medieval. I chose the SECOND definition to avoid any such conflict! Look,

“1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy”

THAT is the definition you are talking about.

I DIDN’T USE THAT DEFINITION LOL!!

The main idea of the word Objective is to be INDEPENDENT.

So you are just plain wrong again, again. Let me be clear: OBJECTIVE does not mean RELATIVE.

OBJECTIVE moral values do not change in RELATION to what humans think!! IF they did, then you couldn’t say they were OBJECTIVE! You would have to say they are RELATIVE!

Secondly, I get a kick out of you criticizing me for only picking out information that supports my argument

LOL!!!

OK Willy, are you REALLY a professor? Do you REALLY not know what the word OBJECTIVE means? Do you REALLY think that to be OBJECTIVE is to be RELATIVE?

WAY back at the beginning of this debate I defined Objective as “valid and binding independently of what anyone believes”

Just that alone should allow us to debate coherently. I can understand your desperate attempt to feign ignorance regarding the word objective.

You’ve committed fallacy after fallacy, addressed an ontological argument with epistemology, asked for definitions which I’d already given, attacked christianity when I never stated I was christian, attacked religion as if I claimed that OMV are derived from religious tenets, claimed that OMV do not exist then reversed that claim as long as OBJECTIVE means RELATIVE and so on.

In all of that you’ve failed to give an ontological account of exactly HOW moral values can be OBJECTIVE without being grounded in a timeless, transcendental foundation like God.

We recognize (both of us) that OMV do exist. Some things are really good and right, some things are really wrong and bad, even if you don’t believe they are, like torturing a baby for fun etc…

The question is, what must be the case if OMV do exist? The most rational and reasonable answer to that question is, quite plausibly, that God exists. That is my ontological foundation for the existence of OMV.

You have neither addressed this issue correctly, refuted my ontological claim OR provided an ontological foundation for OMV on atheism. That’s not to say you are an atheist but you are arguing OMV from a godless point of view, so in that sense you are arguing from an atheistic point of view.

After all of this you’ve even got the definition of Objective wrong. You tried to make it relative which is just absurd.

So as far as I can tell my argument still stands without contest.

Until you can refute both of my premises and construct an argument of your own regarding the ONTOLOGICAL foundation of OMV, I see NO REASON to doubt that God IS the ontological foundation of OMV.

Willy,

“Edgar, this is becoming tedious. We are picking at the belly button fuzz of a very academic theme.”

You’re not giving up are you? Don’t quit now Willy! This has been an interesting debate and I think readers on both sides of this issue could probably enjoy going over our thread here.

I’m disappointed that you feel this is a tedious debate Willy. I was waiting for you to actually take the argument head on. I’m very familiar with this (and other philosophical debates) issue and actually have quite a bit of experience in debating this very topic. I’m familiar with both sides of the argument and used to actually argue FOR the other (your) side! You may not believe that and I guess I can’t blame you for that. That’s OK, but, truth is I did argue against the existence of OMV LONG before I finally changed my mind.

We are not picking at belly button fuzz in my opinion. We have ONE obstacle in the way of this debate moving forward, ONE. That ONE obstacle is the fact that you don’t want to accept the fact that OBJECTIVE means INDEPENDENT.

Here’s how we move forward in a meaningful way: Just accept that OBJECTIVE means OBJECTIVE and not RELATIVE. Then all you have to do is either object to:

1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist.

OR

2. OMV do indeed exist.

That’s all willy. There’s no reason to be stuck on defining objective as it’s an easy and uncontroversial word to understand. The REAL controversy lies in my two premises. You either agree or disagree with them. We don’t need to disagree about the world objective.

“You absolutely will not grant me a point, while I consider your discussion to be antediluvian.”

I granted you points when they were correct! I agreed with you that compassion IS an OMV. I agreed with you that compassion is timeless. I agreed with you that man has gradually come to know OMV. I agreed with you that one does NOT need to believe in God to live morally or apprehend moral values. I agreed with you when you said that OMV exist, of which you named 2.

So I don’t think I’m being unnecessarily stubborn or even unfair at all.

However, my simple argument still holds. It is an ontological argument which you failed to address in an effective way. You simply failed to give an account for an ontological foundation for OMV on an atheistic world view.

You’ve given long accounts of how humans have come to know moral values. You’ve given an account of religion historically. You’ve attacked me personally. You’ve articulated your dislike of my side of this debate. You’ve done everything except really address the core argument, which is an ontological argument.

Your long winded accounts of HOW we have come to know moral values (cooperation among cavemen, social and biological adaptations, conditioning) were very interesting and well written. They just don’t invalidate my ontological argument. That’s all.

Let’s keep this debate going Willy. Accept the definition of Objective and pick a premise to argue. Then we can return to meaningful debate!

Edgar: Thank you for admitting that this is not a new argument for you. You have me at somewhat of a disadvantage, because you obviously have much more time on task with this argument than I have. I’m working on my feet here son and you are working out of a pre-built fortress. Additionally, I have no inherent interests in atheism, while you ” did argue against the existence of OMV LONG before I finally changed my mind.” You’ve been practicing!

Ok, let’s take on the ontological argument. Make your statement, as it doesn’t really work in an argument to begin with the negative if no assertions have been made. For the sake of argument. Let’s take it from both sides,
1. There is no god and therefore no OMVs.
2. There are OMVs.

State your arguments for both and let me proceed from there. Let’s leave my definition of Objective out of this for now. We can come back to it later if necessary.

Ok tiger, take your best shot.

Edgar: Nicely laid out. Obviously you’ve done some writing on this before. The ideas are strongly laid out and organized. I have respect for your intellect, but this stuff doesn’t just flow from anyone’s mind in this orderly fashion. Your scholarship in the area is far advanced to mine. Give me a few minutes to at least “look up euthyphro!” I’ll get back to you.

I was a professor of Theatre and Communication.

“1. If god does not exist then OMV do not exist.
2. OMV exist
and of course from here you know where I stand, God therefore exists.”

Under the circumstances of the proof you present, it is only possible to disprove without either taking the position that OMV do not exist, or god doesn’t. Where I have a problem with this theoretical cul de sac is that in my perception, the connection to god and omv is not absolute. If one accepts the process of natural selection as a given, then one has to accept that the “natural” rules of refinement of the species might well make obvious certain omv. In looking at other species, we see things that appear to be compassion and contribution. Porpoises have saved humans from sharks, and natural enemies often have, when confronted with adversity have acted in compassion for the young, and for each other. Now I understand that we cannot empirically define those activities as OMV, but they certainly look like they are.

I feel very uncomfortable in this argument, because I am not heavily studied in the field of ontology. However, there seem to be certain assumptions you make about god. There appears to be an assumption that for example, god is good. The only way I can make decisions about that is to look at the world’s religions. In the articulations by the world’s religions, I don’t see him/her/it as “good.” The contradictions in values that range throughout the history of religion really do not leave a clear definition of god as good. To argue from a purely “ontological” viewpoint is the process of defining god. If god is above and beyond the confines of worldly experience, then he is beyond definition. If god can be defined, then he/she/it is not beyond the confines of worldly experience, then that being (if in existance), cannot be god.

This isn’t a scholarly argument, but it seems to fit.

Edgar,
““Edgar believes in God because it makes him feel secure (instead of say, natural selection etc…) and therefore God does not exist” While you may be entirely correct about Edgar’s psychological disposition and the motivation behind his belief, it does absolutely nothing to address the actual existence of God. It does not address the substance itself but rather how we come to know it. This fails to challenge the truth of premise #1 so there is no reason to be uncomfortable with the truth of that premise.”

Here is where I get the most frustrated with ontological arguments. We have no other method of arguing except through “how we come to know it.” Even utilizing the arguments through pure logical syllogisms is utilizing a form of how we come to know it. If god exists and all powerful, then he/she/it gave us our logic structure as well. Or, in the process of natural selection, the human species had to develop logic as a technique for survival. After all, we are a terribly weak species when compared to the physicality of the other carnivores we’ve encountered. Is it not possible, really necessary for survival, that humans developed this mental capacity for survival? Is it not also possible that our logic has certain limitations because the natural need is for structuring the physical world, rather than a metaphysical one. In terms of natural selection, the concept of the metaphysical has little value in survival?

If god exists and wants us to know him/her/it, then a framework for our understanding would be provided. However, if god is all the things that he/she/it is billed to be, then that concept cannot be logically framed. It is beyond our ability to enclose in a structure of logic. The medievals attempted to take this argument to a logical end and could only do so within the limited perspective of an unscientific and unsophisticated world.

This is where “faith” becomes a vital part of the metaphysical experience. Faith fills in the gaps where the limitations of human intellect become evident. I have no problem with faith, but it is, by its very nature a belief in the factually unbelievable. This concept has gotten a frightened species through the night for as long as critical thinking has been an element of the human experience. This is also the reason that I really don’t feel impelled to engage extensively in these discussions.

Personally, I have no compelling curiosity about a concept of “god.” As I said in my earlier blog entry, I am more pressed by issues that face my life and the lives of others. My personal belief involves the fact that somehow, I have been given (in an ontological framework), or have developed (in a natural selection one) the ability to perceive my world in such a way as to be able to address the issues that face me. If there is or is not a god is less important to me than the logical value that is derived from making the world that I live in more compatible for all people. That really sums up my argument.

Willy,

“If god exists and wants us to know him/her/it, then a framework for our understanding would be provided. However, if god is all the things that he/she/it is billed to be, then that concept cannot be logically framed. It is beyond our ability to enclose in a structure of logic.”

We don’t have to be able to explain God in entirety to know that omv come from God.

For instance, a young boy could see a laser shoot from a laser gun. He knows the laser beams come from the gun but can’t even begin to explain how such a device works let alone structure it logically.

We know that ideas come to mind but we really can’t fully explain how they come to be, yet we know they exist in our minds. They are really beyond our capability to structure logically.

We can’t logically frame our universe (concepts of infinite space etc…) but we know it exists and have a word for it.

We know that time exists but really can’t define that so well either. Our concept of time is incomplete but still we know it exists.

Intentionally avoiding an appeal to religion we can look at what philosophers throughout history have provided as definitions of God. It’s almost uncontested that the concept of God is the ultimate supreme being, and as the supreme being is perfect in every way. This means God would have good morals and not bad morals. For if God had bad morals then he would not be the perfectly supreme being.

Beware of looking to established religion when inquiring about the nature of God!!

Edgar, dealing with #61:
“So Paul Kurtz says there are no omv precisely because he presupposes that God does not exist. He then implies that omv don’t exist but so what? People have still learned to act (what we call) morally.”

Once again, this is a murky area of debate. If one looks at how the world actually works, the values of the “winner” always hold sway over those of the loser. I hate the idea of “might makes right,” but it has been the historical modus operandi. If Hitler had won, we might be speaking German right now, in a culled society. A study of that period suggests that it was a real possibility for the Axis powers to succeed. But then again, if one looks at the values of our society at the time, it was far from what we, generally today would call “moral.” The record of the colonial powers of Britain and France who fought on the “right side,” was vicious. And the United States, coming off hundreds of years of bloody wars of imperialism against the Indians, the Mexicans, and the Spanish displayed many of the same moral values that we despised in the Germans. The gas chambers were terrible, but the idea of cultural cleansing did not begin in Hitler’s Germany. The ideas began in Britain and the United States. So in that case, who actually did the moral wrong first, and when did it become morally reprehensible?

A very strong case has been made by historians that WWII was waged totally on the basis of corporate and imperialistic value structures that were then sold to the people (on both sides) as moral arguments. The heart strings of the masses can easily be swayed by a powerful elite, whether they be represented by Joseph Goebbles, Winston Churchill, Billy Graham, Barack Obama, or Sarah Palin.

Where I find your argument to weaken, Edgar is when you attempt to make an argument against an evolving morality. Your argument goes as such:

“I don’t think we live that way, I don’t think that reflects reality yet I think we are fully justified in saying that the crusades WERE REALLY wrong, that burning jews in ovens IS REALLY wrong.
Some might say (not an excuse to go to war) that what went on in Saddam’s Rape Rooms was really wrong. Some might say that stoning homosexuals in the town square is really wrong. Perhaps you Willy would just not be willing to say that it’s OK to stone homosexuals even though in Iran they think that’s a moral thing to do.
So I disagree with Paul Kurtz when he claims that omv do not exist. I think they do and I think we all know it. But Paul is forced to bite this ugly bullet in order to avoid the existence of God. He and many other prominent modern philosophers, atheist and theist alike, agree with the first premise.
Under relativism a group of people, like the nazis or militant islamists, could declare homosexuality to be detrimental to human progress and systematically cleanse the earth of such people, yet we would not be able to condemn it with ANY so called moral authority. Instead we would have to understand that their culture is different than ours and respect their choice of morals.
Again, that’s almost unthinkable and I don’t think we can or do really live that way.”

“. . . that’s almost unthinkable and I don’t think we can or do really live that way.” But it is thinkable as we see again and again in the world, and we do really live that way. We declared the Nazis to be immoral, we declared the Soviets to be so, and now we are calling the values of Islam to be so. Based upon what? The Nazis were violently moving to dominate the world and the Allied powers felt (rightfully so) threatened. The Soviets, utilizing methods that were historically traditional in their sphere of consciousness, were trying to collectivize the world in opposition to our desire to capitalize it. The Muslims, using the historical values of an Abrahamic code (one which we stood by for centuries and in large part still do) are following their moral values in suppressing gays, women, and non-believers. If you were to say to people in those relative cultures that their modus operandi were “unthinkable and I don’t think we can or do really live that way” would see you as either crazy, immoral, or simply a trouble maker who should be dealt with.

The existence of OMV on this basis is very weak. A few of us have come to believe and act as if racism is wrong, homophobia is wrong, and all the other phobias, for example. However, those concepts are emerging values, not ones set in stone. Condemning gays is going on with the majority, albeit a smaller one, of our people here for quite some time. That condemnation is going on at the behest of those whom many consider to be the moral leaders of our country.

It is not “unthinkable,” to me it appears to be the way of the world.

Edgar, #63:
Explanatory scope counts! Example, omv’s being founded in God not only accounts for their existence in an objective sense but also best explains our sense of moral duty and gives us a sense of moral accountability.
The alternatives provide less scope and explanatory power.

First of all, you have accomplished your goals of demonstrating a range of inquiry and cogitation concerning the subject. You have done a body of research and are quite well versed in it. In that sense, your work is impressive. I grant you that one possibility or conceptual framework involving god as the origin is at work here. However, it is not an irrefutable case. As a matter of fact, considering the way the world works from natural selection to politics, your theory really isn’t reflected. Unfortunately, might makes right has long held sway (and still does today) over any universal sense of OMV. That is not to say that your thesis could be fact, but as I said before, is not irrefutable. When you get into logical certainties, it becomes even weaker.

I am content with people’s need to “believe.” I have my own ontological view as well, and I consider the atheist’s view an ontological one as well. But all the views finally come back to a concept of faith. Even the atheist, the rabid, foaming at the mouth kind, is speaking through faith because, even if all the atheist’s views are proven to be true, that still is not “logical proof” of the non existence of god. In this “veil of tears,” we will never know. Nice talking with you.

Edgar, I think you are right that the empirical and the actual have a difficult time reconciling. I’m afraid that history tells us that moral values really are made relevant or not by the mighty. I think it is almost impossible to untie the two in the real world.

Nice talking with you, but I don’t think that we will reach meaningful common ground on this one.

Willy,

OK, final thoughts on this one.

My objective here has been to show that we have good reasons to believe that God is the best explanation for the existence of OMV. While my logical argument (if -p then -x; x therefore p) is perfectly valid as a basic logical theorem, it is true that my whole argument is not demonstrably true. I realize this of course and therefore modestly claim that God is the best explanation for OMV.

I stated my two premises which, if true, lead inescapably to the conclusion. You obviously took issue with the truth of my premises in order to invalidate the conclusion.

At first you seemed to take the position of trying to salvage the idea that OMV can and do exist timelessly (compassion, meaningful contribution) but are not grounded in God. This is to say that you agreed with premise 2 (OMV exist) but not premise 1.

But when pressed for an ontological explanation for the existence of omv’s on atheism you struggled to find an adequate explanation. We saw the genetic fallacy and the epistemic fallacy as your major attempts to refute premise 1. So in a logical sense, and in the spirit of an intellectual debate, the truth of the first premise remains intact.

The result is a shift in your initial position. As you stated in your last and presumably final response, “I’m afraid that history tells us that moral values really are made relevant or not by the mighty.” This is a shift from embracing compassion as a timeless omv that should be imposed on any ever-changing world view.

So at the end of this debate you have given up on the idea of trying to salvage omv’s apart from God and instead are forced to deny the second premise – omv exist.

This was a good move on your part from your position! I think it only makes sense that if the first premise isn’t true the second one isn’t either, obviously. This also lifts the burden of trying to give an ontological explanation for the existence of omv’s apart from God.

However, this shift in position coupled with genetic and epistemic fallacious reasoning does not lend itself to a convincing argument on your behalf. In fact, I believe it underscores not your ability to reason, not your understanding, not your skill as a debater, but rather the untenable nature of that side of the argument.

In regards to your final position that omv do not exist and history has shown morals to be relative:

I said earlier that I don’t think that reflects reality but you misunderstood what I meant. You said that history shows us that our outward demonstration of moral values testifies to their relative nature (I paraphrased).

This is a misunderstanding of exactly where the core of the issue is. This has become somewhat of a thematic misunderstanding made evident in your responses over the course of this debate.

To say that omv exist is *not* to say that omv are always clearly apprehended. Sure, some things are clearly right and wrong and I think we’ve gone over that already ie compassion is always right and torturing babies for fun is always wrong. However, there is plenty of gray area! I have no problems conceding that natural selection has gradually improved our ability to grasp moral concepts over the years, and our history as a civilization shows this.

That does not cast any doubt on the existence of omv though. For instance, it has always been a crime to break and enter into someone’s house and steal all of their stuff. That law is objective in the sense that whether or not you believe it to be true, it is true.

We could say, “But Edgar, that law can’t really exist objectively because history has shown us that people have been breaking, entering and stealing since day one of this country”

So once again, this does not in any way challenge the truth of premise 2 as the existence of omv’s is not contingent upon our adherence to them, just as the Law’s existence is not proven by how many people follow it.

My Final, Final, Final word on this:

In the absence of any ontological explanation for the existence of omv apart from god and the absence of any (non-fallacious)reason to doubt that omv do exist, I think I’m right when I say that God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values.

Thanks for the debate Willy. I at least had a lot of fun with it and hopefully everyone else wasn’t bored to tears!

been away since my knee surgery. Very interesting debate. no name calling or mud slinging. god job guys.