Originally posted by HalitoseSure they did unless what you are saying is that every single German didn't agree which gets a "so what". No one at Nuremberg based their defense on the idea that what was done by the Nazi regime was legal (with one exception: Doenitz's and Raeder's largely successful defense of German submarine warfare); "I was following orders" is a type of duress defense which concedes that the act done is unlawful. Some disputed the legality of the Tribunal, but that is a procedural objection not one having anything to do with morals and/or ethics.
The Germans certainly didn't agree.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseI don't need god to validate or guarantee the truth of the statement:
[b]Ever hear of deontology; contractarianism; act consequentialism or utilitarianism; virtue ethics; etc.?[/b][/b]
Uh, yes.
They all posit objective foundations for morals, even if it is the case that such objective criteria often make reference to subjective personal states.
Unless they are all variant descriptions of a singular objec , has some relevant points which I might address at a later stage if I have the time.[/b]
A square has four sides of equal length.
or
London has [insert correct number] bus stops
Further, these proposition would still be true if all human being ceased to exist.
Why, then, should I need god to validate or guarantee the truth of a statement like:
Murdering the innocent is wrong
? Perhaps it is simply a fact.
Originally posted by dottewellI would make a distinction between propositions that describe the physical (of which your first was more of a tautology than anything else) and propositions about ethics.
I don't need god to validate or guarantee the truth of the statement:
A square has four sides of equal length.
or
London has [insert correct number] bus stops
Further, these proposition would still be true if all human being ceased to exist.
Why, then, should I need god to validate or guarantee the truth of a statement like:
Murdering the innocent is wrong
? Perhaps it is simply a fact.
A physical claim can be subjected to mathematical and experimental scrutiny for verification. However, to say that a given action is wrong, you presuppose a moral standard by which to judge its nonconformity. This is implicit in making moral judgements. Where do you derive the moral standard from?
Secondly, is such a moral statement even meaningful in our current age? Here's Hume's test for anything meaningful (the fact that it is self-defeating aside):
"If we take in our hand any volume: of divinity or school of metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames; For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
Originally posted by HalitoseApparently it is utterly beyond your capability to imagine that human nature and reason can set universal (to men anyway) moral standards. No, SuperDuper Something or Other must come down from the heavens and command a "moral standard" or it cannot exist at all. Why do you persist in such a basic misunderstanding of other people's moral philosophies?
I would make a distinction between propositions that describe the physical (of which your first was more of a tautology than anything else) and propositions about ethics.
A physical claim can be subjected to mathematical and experimental scrutiny for verification. However, to say that a given action is wrong, you presuppose a moral standard by which to ...[text shortened]... nce? No. Commit it then to the flames; For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
Interesting thread.
For objective morality to exist you have to make additional assumptions. One can show that subjective morality based on who is looking at the situation exists through an evolutionary/genetic framework. Take the train example and ask whether you would kill your own son in order to save those 20 people? No? Neither would I. Too bad about them, of course.
The genetic predisposition to preserve oneself and 'like copies' is what has been 'hard-wired'. Few of us would sacrifice a man to save an oyster.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with a morality built on democratic principles. Empericially, that functions rather well: a decision is morally right or wrong because, upon reflection, we say it is. A natural or objective morality operating outside of our context is the same as saying "there is a God". It's not a provable statement either way.
So a theist's objective morality (which may not exist) is not superior to an atheist's subejctive morality (which does exist, but depends on circumstance). Take your pick.
The fascinating thing is they seem to converge so often.
4 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseAre you saying that for something to be a fact it must be verifiable? Must it be verifiable in the sense in which we verify scientific/physical facts?
I would make a distinction between propositions that describe the physical (of which your first was more of a tautology than anything else) and propositions about ethics.
A physical claim can be subjected to mathematical and experimental scrutiny for verification. However, to say that a given action is wrong, you presuppose a moral standard by which to nce? No. Commit it then to the flames; For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
Why should this be the case? Is it not mere prejudice? There are plently of what you might believe to be theological "facts" that are no verifiable in this way.
Is a "fact" not simply something that is the case? Why do we need the further stipulation it must be verifiable, and verifiable in a particular (scientific/empirical) way?
I disagree with Hume about most things.
Originally posted by dottewell"A square has four sides of equal length"
I don't need god to validate or guarantee the truth of the statement:
A square has four sides of equal length.
or
London has [insert correct number] bus stops
Further, these proposition would still be true if all human being ceased to exist.
Why, then, should I need god to validate or guarantee the truth of a statement like:
Murdering the innocent is wrong
? Perhaps it is simply a fact.
For this to be objectively true you need a mathematical law that governs the properties of four sided 2 dimensional shapes.
"London has [insert correct number] bus stops"
For this to be objectively true you need an objective law governing counting methods and you need London to actually exist
"Murdering the innocent is wrong"
For this to be objectively true (and not just a matter of opinion) you need a governing and objective moral law and you need that moral law to actually exist. If you have both of these things you are close to something that looks a lot like God. If you do neither one of them then you cannot say " Murdering the innocent IS wrong" but you can say " Murdering the innocent is wrong , in many people's opinion"
You have to be consistent. It's hard I know , but you cannot claim objective truths about morality without having an equally objective moral law that actually exists. It's disingenuous. With no existing moral law there are limits to what you can say about morality. You can have a strong conviction about something "BEING" wrong(in the context of your moral values) , that's fine , but if you then go on to claim that the universe will objectively prove you right (like it might prove you right about squares and London) then you are in the realms of religion my friend.
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou don't need a God to have an objective moral law.
"A square has four sides of equal length"
For this to be objectively true you need a mathematical law that governs the properties of four sided 2 dimensional shapes.
"London has [insert correct number] bus stops"
For this to be objectively true you need an objective law governing counting methods and you need London to actually exist
" ...[text shortened]... ight about squares and London) then you are in the realms of religion my friend.