quote:

Originally posted by Alex 2. The best explanation of moral normativity is that it is grounded in God.

im sorry, but at no stage have you come even close to validating this statement.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im sorry, but at no stage have you come even close to validating this statement.

quote:

For this reason also the question is asked, whether happiness is to be acquired by learning or by habituation or some other sort of training, or comes in virtue of some divine providence or again by chance. Now if there is any gift of the gods to men, it is reasonable that happiness should be god-given, and most surely god-given of all human things inasmuch as it is the best. But this question would perhaps be more appropriate to another inquiry; happiness seems, however, even if it is not god-sent but comes as a result of virtue and some process of learning or training, to be among the most godlike things; for that which is the prize and end of virtue seems to be the best thing in the world, and something godlike and blessed. It will also on this view be very generally shared; for all who are not maimed as regards their potentiality for virtue may win it by a certain kind of study and care. But if it is better to be happy thus than by chance, it is reasonable that the facts should be so, since everything that depends on the action of nature is by nature as good as it can be, and similarly everything that depends on art or any rational cause, and especially if it depends on the best of all causes. To entrust to chance what is greatest and most noble would be a very defective arrangement. The answer to the question we are asking is plain also from the definition of happiness; for it has been said to be a virtuous activity of soul, of a certain kind. Of the remaining goods, some must necessarily pre-exist as conditions of happiness, and others are naturally co-operative and useful as instruments. And this will be found to agree with what we said at the outset; for we stated the end of political science to be the best end, and political science spends most of its pains on making the citizens to be of a certain character, viz. good and capable of noble acts. It is natural, then, that we call neither ox nor horse nor any other of the animals happy; for none of them is capable of sharing in such activity. For this reason also a boy is not happy; for he is not yet capable of such acts, owing to his age; and boys who are called happy are being congratulated by reason of the hopes we have for them. For there is required, as we said, not only complete virtue but also a complete life, since many changes occur in life, and all manner of chances, and the most prosperous may fall into great misfortunes in old age, as is told of Priam in the Trojan Cycle; and one who has experienced such chances and has ended wretchedly no one calls happy.

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, Section IX

Here Aristotle seems to argue that morality (ethics/virtue) is grounded in man's desire to attain god's gift of happiness. To be moral is to be rewarded with that which only God could have created.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im sorry, but at no stage have you come even close to validating this statement.

Just think about it: Intrinsically-valuable, thinking persons do not come from impersonal, non-conscious, unguided, valueless processes over time. A personal, self-aware, purposeful, good God provides the natural and necessary context for the existence of valuable, rights-bearing, morally-responsible human persons. That is, personhood and morality are necessarily connected; moral values are rooted in personhood. Without God (a personal Being), no persons - and thus no moral values - would exist at all: no personhood, no moral values. Only if God exists can moral properties be realized.

In reference to naturalistic or the evolutionary theory of ethics/morals based on survival:

quote:

Ethical awareness has only biological worth. Such an approach leaves us with the following problems: First, can we even trust our minds if we are nothing more than the products of naturalistic evolution, trying to fight, feed, flee, and reproduce? Charles Darwin had a "horrid doubt" that since the human mind has developed from lower animals, why would anyone trust it? Why trust the convictions of a monkey's mind? The naturalistic evolutionary process is interested in fitness/survival-not in true belief; so not only is objective morality undermined so is rational thought. Our beliefs-including moral ones-may help us survive, but there is no reason to think they are true. Belief in objective morality or human dignity may help us survive, but it may be completely false. The problem with skepticism (including moral skepticism) is that I am assuming a trustworthy reasoning process to arrive at the conclusion that I cannot trust my reasoning! If we trust our rational and moral faculties, we will assume a theistic outlook: Being made in the image of a truthful, rational, good Being makes sense of why we trust our senses/moral intuitions.

To reinforce further the point about the God-morality connection, a number of atheists and skeptics have noted it. The late atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie said that moral properties are "queer" given naturalism:

quote:

if there are objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god

Agnostic Paul Draper says:

quote:

A moral world is very probable on theism.

Last edited by Alex on Jan-09-2009 at 16:58

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, Section IX Here Aristotle seems to argue that morality (ethics/virtue) is grounded in man's desire to attain god's gift of happiness. To be moral is to be rewarded with that which only God could have created.

Aww you bastid, I was going to save Aristotle for later!

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Aww you bastid, I was going to save Aristotle for later!

Haha, I'm sure you understand him much better than I, but I thought you could use some moral support.

Pun intended.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Haha, I'm sure you understand him much better than I, but I thought you could use a moral support. Pun intended.

Nah Renegade is more of the philosopher I have to admit, I wish I was as knowledgeable about philosophy as he was, it would make my task easier!

But I appreciate the help mate.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Just think about it: Intrinsically-valuable, thinking persons do not come from impersonal, non-conscious, unguided, valueless processes over time. A personal, self-aware, purposeful, good God provides the natural and necessary context for the existence of valuable, rights-bearing, morally-responsible human persons. That is, personhood and morality are necessarily connected; moral values are rooted in personhood. Without God (a personal Being), no persons - and thus no moral values - would exist at all: no personhood, no moral values. Only if God exists can moral properties be realized.

im totally hammered and quite unable to debate these points right now, i just wanted to say that you're totally full of shit

___________________

What the fuck is with TA? There are supposed to be quotes around that bit too, aargh.

Oh well, whatever.

What the hell time is it in wherever the hell you are anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Nah Renegade is more of the philosopher I have to admit, I wish I was as knowledgeable about philosophy as he was, it would make my task easier! But I appreciate the help mate.

not to gush here or anything, but renegade is the owner of the keenest intellect i have ever come across. what's really crazy is that he hasn't studied any of this shit. his uni involves something quite separate if i remember correctly.

he's definitely a freak!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Alex What the fuck is with TA? There are supposed to be quotes around that bit too, aargh. Oh well, whatever. What the hell time is it in wherever the hell you are anyway?

4.03am. about to smoke some weed and listen to some trance

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im totally hammered and quite unable to debate these points right now, i just wanted to say that you're totally full of shit

It's actually not at all dissimilar from Plato's world of forms. Plato was obviously not a Christian theologian, but he laid the base for Christian dogma quite well by arguing that every object and being on Earth must exist in pure form in another realm. Mankind's "form" has been usurped by the concept of God - various doctrines may get the details wrong (i.e. creation), but Plato's formulation serves quite well when pondering whether or not "God" can evolve as well.

I can't remember which dialogue it appeared in, but Plato had a whole discussion about forms and the divine.

___________________