Questions on morality

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Do you believe an illogical statement can be true?

If this is a new topic, I suggest you start a thread about it.

Originally posted by FMF
If this is a new topic, I suggest you start a thread about it.

I think the question is very applicable to the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I think the question is very applicable to the topic at hand.

Well if you can make a case that it is relevant to our swapping of personal viewpoints on morality, and can do so without simply regurgitating the same stuff you have been repeating over and over and over again, to which you've already been given responses, then go for it. Otherwise either talk about something different or talk to someone else.

Originally posted by FMF
Well if you can make a case that it is relevant to our swapping of personal viewpoints on morality, and can do so without simply regurgitating the same stuff you have been repeating over and over and over again, to which you've already been given responses, then go for it. Otherwise either talk about something different or talk to someone else.

Fair play, let me put it this way. Do you believe two contradictory morals judgements can both be true? For example, if one person believed it is always wrong to rape and another person believed it wasn't, are both persons views equally true? Does moral truth depend on each person's view or does moral truth exist independent of either persons view?

Another way of asking this question would be: Is rape only always wrong because you believe it is, or would it still be wrong even if you believed it wasn't?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Fair play, let me put it this way. Do you believe two contradictory morals judgements can both be true? For example, if one person believed it is always wrong to rape and another person believed it wasn't, are both persons views equally true? Does moral truth depend on each person's view or does moral truth exist independent of either persons view?

The problem with your examples is that they are always seem to be both extreme and implausible. You won't get people disagreeing that rape is wrong. What you might find is two people disagreeing on what constitutes rape.

The way you've wrapped up the last line then it seems to hang on whether God exists or does not. In the latter case then moral truth seems to depend on that one person's view. Otherwise since moral truth is a function of what we think about our actions and there is no preferred person you'd have to look at whether there is some form of consensus.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The problem with your examples is that they are always seem to be both extreme and implausible. You won't get people disagreeing that rape is wrong. What you might find is two people disagreeing on what constitutes rape.

The way you've wrapped up the last line then it seems to hang on whether God exists or does not. In the latter case then moral tr ...[text shortened]... and there is no preferred person you'd have to look at whether there is some form of consensus.

So why don't we use you as an example? On what basis do you make moral decisions?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Fair play, let me put it this way. Do you believe two contradictory morals judgements can both be true? For example, if one person believed it is always wrong to rape and another person believed it wasn't, are both persons views equally true? Does moral truth depend on each person's view or does moral truth exist independent of either persons view?

An ...[text shortened]... ways wrong because you believe it is, or would it still be wrong even if you believed it wasn't?

I've addressed all this stuff on previous recent threads. You're just being repetitious. I'm not interested. See the "Hitler" thread where you studiously ignored my posts time after time after time. If you want to regurgitate the same small number of personal opinions and assertions over and over again, you'll have to do it with someone else.

Originally posted by DeepThought to Fetchmyjunk
The way you've wrapped up the last line then it seems to hang on whether God exists or does not.

As I said earlier on this thread, all I'm hearing from him is what sounds like the circular mantra... '...there MUST be moral absolutes because there's a moral law giver, and there MUST be a moral law giver because how else could you possibly explain the moral absolutes that there obviously are...' ...or words to that effect.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So why don't we use you as an example? On what basis do you make moral decisions?

Because I do not wish to be made an example of. How about if we try to be more clear about what we mean by morality in the first place and specifically what we mean by an absolute morality. I was wondering about this and tried to define a modal operator A(P) where A roughly means allowed and P is some proposition. The first thing to note is that A(P)&A(¬P) is not a contradiction, that simply means that something is optional. ¬A(P) would mean that P is forbidden and ¬A(¬P) means that not P is forbidden and so P is compulsory. For consistency we need that A(P) v A(¬P)) for any P, in other words one of P and its converse must be allowed - it seems a sane requirement of a system of morality that it should be possible to act morally. If for any P, A(P) & A(¬P) then anything goes, all things are allowed.

So, since morality is absolute we can define a collection of possible worlds with the accessibility relation set up so that the only accessible possible worlds are ones where nothing morally forbidden ever happens. This means that we have that for P to be allowed there must be a possible world where P happens. Write this as:

A(P) <-> ∃w R(a, w) & P(w)

P is allowed if and only if there exists some possible world w accessible from the actual world a where the proposition P(w) evaluated in that world is true. R(w1, w2) is true if and only if w2 is accessible from w1. Note that the actual world is not accessible from itself, as to be accessible possible worlds have to be perfect worlds and the actual world is not morally perfect so we have that ¬R(a, a). If P is not allowed we have:

¬A(P) <-> ¬∃w R(a, w)&P(w)

This is the same as:

¬A(P) <-> ∀w R(a, w) -> ¬P(w)

P is forbidden if and only if in all accessible possible worlds P(w) is false. From this it is vacuously true that:

¬A(P) -> ∀w R(a, w) -> (P(w) -> Q(w))

Which, returning to the modal notation gives us:

¬A(P) -> ¬A¬ (P->Q)

What this is saying is that if P is forbidden then it is obligatory that if P then Q. In other words the system may be able to provide an account of morality, but it has no power to analyse what to do if a moral code is transgressed. If P is "If someone walks on the grass" then Q can be anything, so we can get a sentence like:

If walking on the grass in Central Park (NYC) is forbidden then it is obligatory that if someone walks on the grass in Central Park then Basingstoke shall be destroyed with an atom bomb.

The system is rendered useless unless ∀P A(P)&A(¬P), in other words if nothing is immoral. So I think you have a problem trying to start from perfection, as it cannot cope with what to do with imperfection.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I think the question is very applicable to the topic at hand.

Do the "moral absolutes" you believe in have any bearing on your personal opinion about capital punishment?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Because I do not wish to be made an example of. How about if we try to be more clear about what we mean by morality in the first place and specifically what we mean by an absolute morality. I was wondering about this and tried to define a modal operator A(P) where A roughly means allowed and P is some proposition. The first thing to note is that A(P)& ...[text shortened]... a problem trying to start from perfection, as it cannot cope with what to do with imperfection.

In a hypothetical system where God is the standard of perfection and has the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience, how would coping with imperfection still be a problem?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I think the question is very applicable to the topic at hand.

What do the "moral absolutes" you believe in have to say about women having to remain silent in churches, not being allowed to speak, but having to be "in submission" instead? Is there a "moral absolutes" angle for you on this issue?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I think the question is very applicable to the topic at hand.

Do the "moral absolutes" you believe in have any bearing on the issue of corporal punishment, and things like men husbands using physical force (or violence) against their wives? These are "questions on morality".

Originally posted by FMF
Do the "moral absolutes" you believe in have any bearing on the issue of corporal punishment, and things like men husbands using physical force (or violence) against their wives? These are "questions on morality".

If you believe the Bible allows for capital punishment or for husbands to beat their wives, state your case. I am not aware that it does.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you believe the Bible allows for capital punishment or for husbands to beat their wives, state your case. I am not aware that it does.

I am asking you what your moral analysis is of these things. I am not asking you to ask me what I think about what the bible says.