Foundation for Morals

[ergosum]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 20 2005, 05:04 PM']OK....here we go.....from a purely philosophical point of view, this paper is a great explaination.

[url="http://members.aol.com/okhutor/essay/morals.html"]Objective Morality: Based on Scientific and Rational Reasoning [/url]

It is a bit envolved, but a good excercise....read on.
[right][snapback]651586[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I read your E---N----T-----I-----R----E article! And honestly, the first thing I want to say to you is: learn the art of brevity!

Okay. Now, with regards to your paper... at best, all your paper does is scratch the surface of moral foundations. Really, you have no system of morality or objective foundation to base standards of morality upon... nothing of that sort is proposed in the paper.

You mention the need for an understanding of objective morality and say that you have the answer. But throughout your entire paper I found more evidence of your moral theory being based on logical positivism and subjectivism than anything else! There is absolutely no objective moral footing that I could identify in the paper.

How does one come up with "distinguishing characteristics"? Is it possible for different people to read different things into an action and therefore come up with different values for "distinguishing characteristics"?
And clearly, WHAT is your definition of morality? Is intention in the realm of morality or is only ACTION? You don't state anything clearly.

What is the "objective" stance on abortion according to your moral theory? Is it okay to abort 5 mins before birth? 10 mins? 30 mins? 7 days? Eventually, you have to answer... objectively... without any grey area... what your stance on abortion at any given time of pregnancy based on your moral system... and remember, objective means, that should apply to all peoples at all times across all cultures!

There's so much more... I won't say much. Your paper falls far short of doing anything to build an objective foundation for morals. You don't even clearly define WHY we need morals... why should we even engage in this task... what are values.... and how do we create values (or are they not created by intrinsic) and how does morals arise from values or vice versa.

[Cam42]

[quote]Umm, no. Anselm and Aquinas were not able to explain away my arguments so easily. To say that God "WILL NOT" go against His nature is an easy cop-out.... it is like me saying, "Oh yeah, I can move that mountain, but I "WILL NOT"... because I "CHOOSE NOT TO".

God does not "WILL" to not kill Himself, or come to a state of NON-EXISTENCE, because God CANNOT CANNOT, simply CANNOT DO IT! It is IMPOSSIBLE for your concept of God to be able to commit suicide!! Just like, no matter how much I fool you into believing that I can move that mountain, I CANNOT, I just simply CANNOT do it.[/quote]

The burden of proof is upon you, not the Church. Prove me wrong.

Here is Thomas' argument:

1. Argument From Motion.
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion.

2. Causation Of Existence.
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things.

3. Contingent and Neccessary Objects.
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God.

4. The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection.
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured.

5. The Agrument From Intelligent Design.
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.

If you think that you can knock that down, fantastic. Have at it.....here is Anselm's argument.

1) God is defined as the being in which none greater is possible.
2) It is true that the notion of God exists in the understanding (your mind.)
3) And that God may exist in reality (God is a possible being.)
4) If God only exists in the mind, and may have existed, then God might have been greater than He is.
5) Then, God might have been greater than He is (if He existed in reality.)
6) Therefore, God is a being which a greater is possible.
7) This is not possible, for God is a being in which a greater is impossible.
8) Therefore God exists in reality as well as the mind.

Good luck.....I don't think that you can do it. However, the burden of proof lies with you, ergosum.

I would also suggest that you read [url="http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM"]Fides et Ratio[/url]. It, coupled with the previous link, should answer most of your questions.

[Jaime]

Ergo

Just to clarify, while the identity of Cam is so top secret that even Carl Rove can't blow his cover, he is not Eugene Khutoryansky. And thank God for that because Cam doesn't like to sign his whole name now on credit card receipts. He would hate to have to sign Eugene Khutoryansky every time!!


Something to keep in mind

[Cam42]

[quote name='ergosum' date='Jul 21 2005, 10:42 AM']I read your E---N----T-----I-----R----E article! And honestly, the first thing I want to say to you is: learn the art of brevity!

Okay. Now, with regards to your paper...  at best, all your paper does is scratch the surface of moral foundations. Really, you have no system of morality or objective foundation to base standards of morality upon... nothing of that sort is proposed in the paper.

You mention the need for an understanding of objective morality and say that you have the answer. But throughout your entire paper I found more evidence of your moral theory being based on logical positivism and subjectivism than anything else! There is absolutely no objective moral footing that I could identify in the paper.

How does one come up with "distinguishing characteristics"? Is it possible for different people to read different things into an action and therefore come up with different values for "distinguishing characteristics"?
And clearly, WHAT is your definition of morality? Is intention in the realm of morality or is only ACTION? You don't state anything clearly.

What is the "objective" stance on abortion according to your moral theory? Is it okay to abort 5 mins before birth? 10 mins? 30 mins? 7 days? Eventually, you have to answer... objectively... without any grey area... what your stance on abortion at any given time of pregnancy based on your moral system... and remember, objective means, that should apply to all peoples at all times across all cultures!

There's so much more... I won't say much. Your paper falls far short of doing anything to build an objective foundation for morals. You don't even clearly define WHY we need morals... why should we even engage in this task... what are values.... and how do we create values (or are they not created by intrinsic) and how does morals arise from values or vice versa.
[right][snapback]652410[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not my paper...simply a link that starts the conversation. You are certainly missing the point of the paper though. There is more. At least it is getting you to think. That is the point of posting the link. Fides et Ratio continues the thought......