Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:17 pm
Moral principles are a set of principles that the rightness or wrongness of an act can be derived from. How about this?

Yep, I can live with that.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:21 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:17 pm
Moral principles are a set of principles that the rightness or wrongness of an act can be derived from. How about this?

Yep, I can live with that.

So long as what we choose to do has a reasoning of LOVE behind it, then it IS morally acceptable to God.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:40 pm So long as what we choose to do has a reasoning of LOVE behind it, then it IS morally acceptable to God.

But you can't expect someone who doesn't believe in any kind of God to take that into account. And to be honest, the God of the Bible did a load of stuff that I certainly wouldn't consider to be morally acceptable.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 4:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 2:48 am I'll need your definition of "moral fact," first.

Moral facts are a set of principles that the rightness or wrongness of an act can be derived from.

???? That definition is totally inadequate. Good heaven's man...you can't expect anyone to accept that.

Firstly, you've put it into what we call "the passive voice." That is a grammar term, meaning that the doer of the action is either not specified, or not even included in the sentence.

So "somebody" is "deriving" something, somehow, from somewhere. That's all you've said.

Then, you've called "moral facts" a "set of principles." But a "fact" is not a "set." And a "set" is not a "fact." So you there is no coherence in that statement.

Most tellingly, a priniciple has to be legitimized. What that means is that you owe a person to show what authority, reasons or grounds stand behind a given principle and make it obligatory. You can't just say, "Well, this is my principle, and you ought to follow it, too." Nobody has any reason to think they do, given no more than that.

So if you say, "My principle is, "You shall not kill," say, you have to say as well what grounds make that something that everybody else should believe and practice. What makes it obligatory? What makes us confident that it is genuinely a moral imperative?

So if you have no moral authorities, and no grounded methods for locating a moral principle, then by definition, all you have, at most, is arbitrary wishes...nothing more. And anyone and everyone can safely ignore you on that.

So again, what is a "moral fact", according to you?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:40 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:21 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:17 pm
Moral principles are a set of principles that the rightness or wrongness of an act can be derived from. How about this?

Yep, I can live with that.

So long as what we choose to do has a reasoning of LOVE behind it, then it IS morally acceptable to God.

You mean like when I decide I "love my neighbour's wife"? Or when I would "love to have" his Ferrari? Which kind of "love" do you think purifies all actions there?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:48 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:40 pm So long as what we choose to do has a reasoning of LOVE behind it, then it IS morally acceptable to God.

But you can't expect someone who doesn't believe in any kind of God to take that into account.

So wot..what is your point?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:48 pmAnd to be honest, the God of the Bible did a load of stuff that I certainly wouldn't consider to be morally acceptable.

I don't buy_bull, I don't just accept, I question EVERYTHING because I am intelligent, and that is what God wanted (from all the bullshit in that book).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:10 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:40 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:21 pm

Yep, I can live with that.

So long as what we choose to do has a reasoning of LOVE behind it, then it IS morally acceptable to God.

You mean like when I decide I "love my neighbour's wife"?

Y wouldn't U love your neighbour's wife? I do my best to love everyone.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:10 pmOr when I would "love to have" his Ferrari? Which kind of "love" do you think purifies all actions there?

Be jealous dickhead.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:18 pm Y wouldn't U love your neighbour's wife? I do my best to love everyone.

I'm asking you what you mean by "love." Because sexual desire is one kind of "love." And if "love" justifies anything at all...

Do the math.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:17 pm So wot..what is your point?

My point is that to talk about God in the context of morality only makes sense if the conversation is between parties who all believe in a particular God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:22 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:18 pm Y wouldn't U love your neighbour's wife? I do my best to love everyone.

I'm asking you what you mean by "love." Because sexual desire is one kind of "love." And if "love" justifies anything at all...

Do the math.

How about you do the maths?

Would you like to be the third installment of Christ?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:22 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:18 pm Y wouldn't U love your neighbour's wife? I do my best to love everyone.

I'm asking you what you mean by "love." Because sexual desire is one kind of "love." And if "love" justifies anything at all...

Do the math.

How about you do the maths?

Okay. If "love" excuses anything, then it excuses adultery...and, plausibly, it justifies covetousness as well. All I have to say is, "Yeah, but I really love X," and my taking of X is legit.

Left as you stated it, that's the implication.

Happy with that implication of your view? Or would you wish to refine it a bit?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:38 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:22 pm
I'm asking you what you mean by "love." Because sexual desire is one kind of "love." And if "love" justifies anything at all...

Do the math.

How about you do the maths?

Okay. If "love" excuses anything, then it excuses adultery...and, plausibly, it justifies covetousness as well. All I have to say is, "Yeah, but I really love X," and my taking of X is legit.

Left as you stated it, that's the implication.

Happy with that implication of your view? Or would you wish to refine it a bit?

How you conceive of love appears rather shabby. It's one thing to love thy neighbour's wife, quite another to shag her without his consent.

I was more interested with U answering the other question, oh ye of little faith.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:40 pm So long as what we choose to do has a reasoning of LOVE behind it, then it IS morally acceptable to God.

I've thought some more about this statement, and I can't avoid concluding that it is no more than candy floss. Sorry.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:51 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:40 pm So long as what we choose to do has a reasoning of LOVE behind it, then it IS morally acceptable to God.

I've thought some more about this statement, and I can't avoid concluding that it is no more than candy floss. Sorry.

Harbal. Please don't apologise for your lack of faith and or intelligence.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:54 pm

Harbal. Please don't apologise for your lack of faith and or intelligence.

Or indeed my lack of faith in your intelligence, fish pie.