Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sev Should Check His Metaphysics


Claims about what ought to be can’t be tested so they are not capable of being either true or false.

Thus spoke Sev
Let’s test Sev’s assertion.
Genocide ought not to happen.
Is this claim capable of being false?

If it is capable of being false, under what circumstances would you approve of genocide?

If it is not capable of being false, then admit your statement is wrong.

Prediction: Sev will either ignore this or he will engage in mealy-mouthed “it is not capable for me to believe it is false, but damned if I am able to say the same to the next Hitler who comes along.”
Sev, when your metaphysics force you to say stupid things, you should probably reexamine your metaphysics. I doubt that you will.

Seversky has a very distorted if not cartoonish view of what most of us who advocate objective morality are arguing. We’re not starting with the Bible; we’re starting with natural law. The main quote we use when we do quote from the Bible is Paul’s teaching in Roman’s 2:14 &15 where he argues “when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them…” In other words, Paul is saying that all humans have access to natural law through their hearts and conscience. Whether or not it’s written down some place, there is morally binding natural law. Peter Kreeft give a very clear and concise explanation of what natural law is in the following linked article:
What is natural law and why is it important? Moral laws are based on human nature. That is, what we ought to do is based on what we are. “Thou shalt not kill,” for instance, is based on the real value of human life and the need to preserve it. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is based on the real value of marriage and family, the value of mutual self-giving love, and children’s need for trust and stability. The natural law is also naturally known, by natural human reason and experience. We don’t need religious faith or supernatural divine revelation to know that we’re morally obligated to choose good and avoid evil or to know what “good” and “evil” mean… Speaking of pagans, St. Paul says that “they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness” (Rom 2:15). The term “natural law” is sometimes misunderstood. “This law is called ‘natural,’ not in reference to the nature of irrational beings [that is, animals — it is not a law of biology], “but because reason, which decrees it, properly belongs to human nature”…
http://legatus.org/what-is-natural-law-and-why-is-it-important/ See also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ The point is that just because someone doesn’t believe the Bible or have a religion it doesn’t follow there are no objective moral obligations. Ironically that is actually a biblical teaching. john_a_designer
Do I believe genocide is wrong? Yes Do I believe there is any objective standard against which to measure the wrongness of genocide? No And if there is no objective morality then what else is there but subjective opinion?
Point to Sev for showing up and engaging. Still, his argument amounts to "genocide is not my cup of tea, but if it is your cup of tea, who am I to say you are objectively wrong." Again, when your metaphysics requires you to say wildly stupid things, you should reexamine your metaphysics. Barry Arrington
History informs us that Hitler and the Nazis came to power democratically. A number of our interlocutors argue that moral obligations and universal human right are subjective values which ultimately we create. When challenged with the question of how you can create a moral and just society which protects human rights they argue that we have to establish a consensus. Isn’t that what the Nazis had when they came to power in 1933, a consensus? When the Reichstag passed the Nuremberg laws which discriminated against and disenfranchised German Jews in 1935 it passed by an overwhelming majority. So did that make discrimination based on race moral? Did it mean that there was nothing really wrong in denying German Jews their rights? …that it was okay for German society to treat them as subhuman… to exterminate them like rats? When Nazi leaders and judges defended themselves at war crimes trials in 1945 and 46 they pled not guilty because they were just following orders or obeying the law. Were allied prosecutors wrong when they argued that there was a law above the law? Were the Nazis only wrong because they lost the war? Logically moral relativism argues that they weren’t really morally wrong, just unlucky. john_a_designer
Doctor William Ln., Craig goes into great length and detail on moral objectivism, I don’t know if you’ve looked him up at all or listen to his talks on the subject I also know he’s very religious and you would probably consider it a biased viewpoint Seversky I do not agree with you, but I also would like to thank you for at least breaking down your point of view and not being a jerk about it. AaronS1978
Claims about what ought to be can’t be tested so they are not capable of being either true or false.
Thus spoke Sev Let’s test Sev’s assertion. Genocide ought not to happen. Is this claim capable of being false? If it is capable of being false, under what circumstances would you approve of genocide? If it is not capable of being false, then admit your statement is wrong.
Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, it is defined as follows:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: a. Killing members of the group; b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
That is truth by definition. That is how genocide is defined. If I claim that genocide causes immense loss of life, injury and pain to a population that is a claim about what is. By the correspondence theory, we can verify that claim as true or false by observing the effects of those activities to see if the claim measures up to what we see. If I claim that genocide is morally wrong, that human beings should not commit such acts against one another, that is neither a definition of genocide nor is it a claim about what is, so by the correspondence theory of truth it is neither true nor false. Do I believe genocide is wrong? Yes, of course, and it is as wrong in the Biblical context as it is anywhere else. Do I believe there is any objective standard against which to measure the wrongness of genocide? No, I don't but by all means show me one that is something other than a collective view of human beings and I will consider it. And if there is no objective morality then what else is there but subjective opinion? What are the moral edicts of God in the Bible other than the opinion of that individual? He provides no detailed explanations of - or rationales for - them. Did He work them out rationally or basically toss a divine coin? We are not told. Objectivists argue that subjectivism leads to some sort of nihilistic, amoral free-for-all yet their position implies that they would have no idea of what is right or wrong unless their God told them or there was some objective moral standard to check against. They are quiet about the origins of the objectivity of this supposed standard. As for the nihilism accusation, this ignores the fact that most people would agree that they would rather not be arbitrarily murdered or raped or tortured or enslaved or have their property stolen. They would also rather it didn't happen to their loved ones, family and friends or anyone else. That seems to me to be a pretty good basis for morality. And I'll ask again the question I asked before but which no one answered, wouldn't you prefer to have some say in the moral code to which you would be subject rather than just have it imposed from outside or from above? Seversky
Oh wow we are up to six mocking comments that pulls thing out of context. You are working hard at being a troll...... btw the way thanks for misquoting the Bible. You so cool and smart bro AaronS1978
Genocide is okay in my book. Just ask the Amalekites. -Yahweh DerekDiMarco
Since Seversky has so far been a no show on this thread let me quote something he has said before:
I believe that the overwhelming majority of ordinary, decent people, if honestly presented with the best information available will choose a moral solution. This is why I believe consensus morality is the only alternative to some sort of imposed command morality, whether theological or ideological. The problem in democracies is that politicians are rarely honest about their real intentions and treat good information as a rare and precious commodity not to be lightly handed out to just anyone. The problem is, how do we prevent the people we choose to run things for us from being corrupted by the power we hand them?
https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/severskey-is-honest/#comment-672632 Queue the violins. Bring in the female narrator with the touchy feely voice. Seversky makes his consensus morality sound so good. But how do we arrive at any kind of consensus without some kind of interpersonal standard which we can use to judge whose moral beliefs or opinions have merit and whose do not? If all moral beliefs and opinions are equal, which they must be according moral subjectivism and relativism, then such a standard does not exist and all talk of so-called consensus is illusory. john_a_designer
I think Derek DiMarco made that point perfectly clear with his mocking anybody that doesn’t share his viewpoint It’s how many atheists communicate their message, by mocking you with something that is pseudo-clever that allows them to feel smart when it’s really not clever at all I believe his last five statements have been pretty much mocking somebody and then he complained earlier in another post about how people are just rude.................... AaronS1978
So, because moral dilemmas sometimes rarely force an exceptions to the rules that cancels out the moral obligation to tell the truth the other 99.99% of the time? john_a_designer
Derek the loser didn't know Anne Frank and wasn't even involved with it. See how ignorant and desperate our opponents have become. ET
Sorry Anne Frank, when those Nazi officers asked me if you were hiding here, I was morally obligated to tell the truth. See you later, alligator. DerekDiMarco
Is the following proposition (Truth claim) true or false? All mentally competent human being are morally obligated to tell the truth. It can have dire consequences when we don’t. In other words, the obligation is not based on your personal moral beliefs and opinions. What if someone doesn’t agree that lying is wrong? Does that make it okay for him because he doesn’t believe it’s wrong? What if 99% of the people in a community believed there was nothing really wrong with lying? Would that make it moral to lie? So are there practical “objective” reasons for not lying? What about murder? What about rape? What about child abuse? Racial discrimination? Genocide? Are there practical objective reasons why those things might be wrong? john_a_designer
Oh, and then there's the continuing genocide by the Bantus against just about EVERYBODY else in sub-Saharan Africa. When they massacred several MILLION Watutsi in Rwanda, there was barely the mildest, "Well, gee, guys. That wasn't a very nice thing to do." The same with the million or so Biafrans murdered in the late 1960s. And of course NOBODY considers there to be anything wrong with Black Africans butchering White Africans in Rhodesia and South Africa. But see the authoritative documentary on advanced folks bringing peace and technology to unappreciative locals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ozEZxOsanY vmahuna
"under what circumstances would you approve of genocide" Hey, Survival of the Fittest is ENTIRELY about genocide. We NEEDED to wipe out all those darn Neanderthals, and OF COURSE then the more advanced Indo-European folk NEEDED to kill off most of the Atlanteans (the Ancient people of Northern Europe who lived along the Atlantic coast) so that we (the surviving Indo-European males) could breed with their wimmen to produce the Greeks and Romans and Irish. When the French explorers (and missionaries) came south from Canada in the 1600s, they met and documented the existence and culture of the "Mississippian" people who lived along the Ohio, etc. A hundred years later, when English explorers came west across the Appalachians, ALL of the Mississippian people had vanished. The general conclusion is that they were all massacred by "barbarian" Indians from New York, etc. But this was perfectly natural, while the later American colonization of the Mid-West was of course Genocide, because it involved evil white folks killing Native Americans on their "ancestral" lands (on which they had lived for only a couple generations). vmahuna

Leave a Reply