Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

[ding]

We are more the children of society than we are of our parents.

If that were true you would never oppose the status quo.

 

[ding]

Every single gain in human rights came about because there are absolute morals.

 

[Blues Man]

Blues Man would you have owned slaves 180 years ago?

Or would you have been one of those people who knew it was wrong 180 years ago?

That is an unanswerable question.

And human slavery existed for millennia before people started to believe it was wrong. As societies evolved and advanced that is one of the beliefs that changed over time

You are confusing indentured servitude with forced slavery, dummy.

I suspect all throughout history there were people who knew forced slavery was wrong. Certainly the slaves did.

You won't answer the question because you are dishonest.

No I'm not. You don't seem to understand that the entirety of history has not been recorded.

And you seem to just be talking about slavery in the US.

Did you know the Romans had slaves?

The Egyptians?

 

[ding]

Every positive change in status quo came about because there are absolute morals. It is not because they changed their minds it is because they realized they were wrong.

 

[Blues Man]

We are more the children of society than we are of our parents.

If that were true you would never oppose the status quo.

not necessarily counter culture is part of society as well.

 

[ding]

Blues Man would you have owned slaves 180 years ago?

Or would you have been one of those people who knew it was wrong 180 years ago?

That is an unanswerable question.

And human slavery existed for millennia before people started to believe it was wrong. As societies evolved and advanced that is one of the beliefs that changed over time

You are confusing indentured servitude with forced slavery, dummy.

I suspect all throughout history there were people who knew forced slavery was wrong. Certainly the slaves did.

You won't answer the question because you are dishonest.

No I'm not. You don't seem to understand that the entirety of history has not been recorded.

And you seem to just be talking about slavery in the US.

Did you know the Romans had slaves?

The Egyptians?

I have forgotten more about slavery than you ever knew.

 

[Blues Man]

Every positive change in status quo came about because there are absolute morals. It is not because they changed their minds it is because they realized they were wrong.

your opinion

 

[ding]

We are more the children of society than we are of our parents.

If that were true you would never oppose the status quo.

not necessarily counter culture is part of society as well.

For the reasons I have stated. Every single gain in human rights has occurred because there are absolute morals and truth. Forced slavery ended because it was wrong and their were people who fought to end it. Same for the cultures that allowed sex with children.

 

[ding]

Every positive change in status quo came about because there are absolute morals. It is not because they changed their minds it is because they realized they were wrong.

your opinion

Nope. Why else did they change? They changed because they were wrong and others fought for the change because they had truth on their side.

 

[ding]

Truth eventually wins out because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fall.

 

[Ringtone]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Behold, we are not beholden to religious extremists who make false and unsubstantiated claims such as "the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all''.

Firstly, ''natural law'' is not a function of supernatural gods who would ''naturally'' create supernatural law. Secondly, various cultures inventing various gods who delivered contradictory versions of law refutes quite clearly the religious extremists' statement about some universal standard,

Behold, the confused, inarticulate rambling of the religious extremist.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

just as you have not proven one of your assertions

I disagree. I have explained what it is. You have only argued what it isn't.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

The history of societal morals is the history of man as they could not have existed before man.

Our morals have evolved for no other reason than some behaviors are more beneficial to survival.

The concept of fairness is no different. In fact I believe the concept of fairness was born out of the human trait of jealousy.

Right and wrong / fairness is an artifact of intelligence. It is based on logic. It existed before man existed and was only waiting to be discovered like everything else which is apart from man.

Logic was invented by man in an attempt to better his own reasoning ability.

Like ding, I've always understood that logic is the ontological foundation of morality. Humans did not invent the laws of logic—the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, and arguably the principles of sufficient causation and inference. Your notion is absurd. Humans have understood the laws of logic from the jump. Indeed, the universally objective imperatives of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over reasoning, language and science.

 

[ding]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Behold, we are not beholden to religious extremists who make false and unsubstantiated claims such as "the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all''.

Firstly, ''natural law'' is not a function of supernatural gods who would ''naturally'' create supernatural law. Secondly, various cultures inventing various gods who delivered contradictory versions of law refutes quite clearly the religious extremists' statement about some universal standard,

Behold, the confused, inarticulate rambling of the religious extremist.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

just as you have not proven one of your assertions

I disagree. I have explained what it is. You have only argued what it isn't.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

The history of societal morals is the history of man as they could not have existed before man.

Our morals have evolved for no other reason than some behaviors are more beneficial to survival.

The concept of fairness is no different. In fact I believe the concept of fairness was born out of the human trait of jealousy.

Right and wrong / fairness is an artifact of intelligence. It is based on logic. It existed before man existed and was only waiting to be discovered like everything else which is apart from man.

Logic was invented by man in an attempt to better his own reasoning ability.

Like ding, I've always understood that logic is the ontological foundation of morality. Humans did not invent the laws of logic—the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, and arguably the principles of sufficient causation and inference. Your notion is absurd. Humans have understood the laws of logic from the jump. Indeed, the universally objective imperatives of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over reasoning, language and science.

Right. Whether or not they knew what logic was, they used it. It's an artifact of intelligence.

 

[ding]

Personally I can't understand why people would believe morals are determined by society because we know from recent history that there were people who opposed slavery when slavery was accepted by society. Or we could use abortion today as an example of people not accepting what society determines is right and wrong.

As for the argument that we are taught right and wrong by our parents this may be true when we are children but eventually we grow up and get to think for ourselves. If the argument is correct that we only believe what we were taught by our parents then we would never change our beliefs when we grow up.

 

[Ringtone]

Saying there are no moral absolutes isn't a moral absolute in itself.

Morals exist. I never said they didn't. I just said morals are a human concept and arose from the human mind not from some other source.

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), which is what you're actually alluding to in this case.

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight.

This, ultimately, is just one of the things ding and I are trying to help you see. But for the moment forget about all that.

And maybe you should quote my entire post and not cherry pick bits and pieces of it so you can address the examples in context as they relate to the subject.

I didn't quote the entirety of your propositional situations for a reason. Early I wrote:

On another thread, you held that there's a difference between killing someone and murdering someone.​

​

So (1) what precisely is your underlying justification for this moral distinction, and (2) by what means do you make this distinction?​

Apparently, by way of an answer, you responded with questions of your own. Fine. I can do it your way, so I began the process of answering your questions. Observe:

Let's take killing.. Either killing is wrong or it isn't[,] right?

Right.​

If a person kills my wife. . . .

Was your wife trying to murder him, or did he murder her?​

Answer?

 

[Ringtone]

Personally I can't understand why people would believe morals are determined by society because we know from recent history that there were people who opposed slavery when slavery was accepted by society. Or we could use abortion today as an example of people not accepting what society determines is right and wrong.

As for the argument that we are taught right and wrong by our parents this may be true when we are children but eventually we grow up and get to think for ourselves. If the argument is correct that we only believe what we were taught by our parents then we would never change our beliefs when we grow up.

When I was a child I instinctively adopted my parents morality, including my mother's subtle racial prejudice. My mother, like my father, was always appalled by any overt racial injustice, but unlike my father, she was raised by racists. By the way, my mother is thankful for my father's influence and came to renounce that nonsense years ago. When I was a teen, I rejected a number of the morals my parents taught me, my mother's racial prejudice for one. As an adult I came to realize that I was mostly wrong as hell.

 

[Ringtone]

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

This is an ontological claim of ultimate origin.

and?

See this post: Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

By the way, the above post should read Earlier I wrote, not Early I wrote.

 

[Indeependent]

An objective standard of morality exists.

 

[Hollie]

Personally I can't understand why people would believe morals are determined by society because we know from recent history that there were people who opposed slavery when slavery was accepted by society. Or we could use abortion today as an example of people not accepting what society determines is right and wrong.

As for the argument that we are taught right and wrong by our parents this may be true when we are children but eventually we grow up and get to think for ourselves. If the argument is correct that we only believe what we were taught by our parents then we would never change our beliefs when we grow up.

When I was a child I instinctively adopted my parents morality, including my mother's subtle racial prejudice. My mother, like my father, was always appalled by any overt racial injustice, but unlike my father, she was raised by racists. By the way, my mother is thankful for my father's influence and came to renounce that nonsense years ago. When I was a teen, I rejected a number of the morals my parents taught me, my mother's racial prejudice for one. As an adult I came to realize that I was mostly wrong as hell.

Of course. You ''instinctively'' adopted the socio-cultural norms of your parents and geographic place of birth. As we know, religion is rarely a choice. People rarely apply very hard standards to their religious beliefs. They tend to be cultural (i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another.

One's religion is, with near exclusivity, a matter of parentage and place of birth. Raise a child in an islamic nation of islamic parents and the child will be Moslem. The same thing for a Hindu child in a Hindu home or a child from the US in a christian home.

A person's happenstance of geographic place of birth and parentage is, overwhelmingly, what drives their religion, their ''morals'', values and politics.

 

[BreezeWood]

Truth eventually wins out because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fall.

.
so says the practicing 4th century christian, replicating the forgeries and facilities of the christian bible as a mainstay of their - moral - beliefs.
.

.
the side of the coin they endure.

what change in morals are those that may not reemerge given the opportunity over time other than an individuals own triumph one over the other.

which implies at least two absolute states exist to chose from both being eternal.

 

[Blues Man]

you really don't think about what you write you just speculate that I am trying to make a profit from killing animals

That's insane. It never crossed my mind.

what is that other than an assumption about me?

That you behave like most human beings.

So why don't you tell me what elicits strong feelings from me?

I already did.

And I never said eating animals was wrong did I? I said I don't eat animals. Why do you have to put your value judgements on my behavior?

So you shouldn't have a problem answering the question I asked. Do you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products?

And It's not my place to tell other people what they should do or to judge them for things they do. That seems to be what you want me to do so you can try for some gotcha moment.

I didn't ask you to tell others anything. I asked you if you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products? Do you?

and I see you have stared with the name calling again so it seems that you haven't "discovered" the rules of logic yet because you fall to avoid the ad hominem trap

Is it wrong to call someone who is stupid dummy?

I have explained why behaviors and attitudes evolve in a society and it has nothing to do with some magic code floating around for people to discover. In fact it's even simpler than that because there is no need to assign some supernatural force as responsible for it.

And I have explained why you are wrong.

Our behaviors have evolved so as to best encourage the survival of the human race.

Yes, for logical reasons because errors couldn't stand. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

you wrote

" So if a farmer is unnecessarily killing males, it is wrong. I don't see anyone celebrating it, other than maybe you who is trying to profit from it to rationalize there is no such thing as good and bad when logic clearly says otherwise. You lose again. "


So why do you speculate such a thing about me?

You insist on making this argument personal which tells me you cannot support your position in any other way that by trying to get me to contradict myself. I won't

ANd the only thing you said so far that I agree with is that morals can be whatever we want them to be.

But there is no universal code.

Your response tells me that you believe I was wrong, right? That I wronged you?

I did it to prove that point, dummy.

You cannot wrong me as you are an anonymous poster on an internet board.

But since you cannot continue without the childish name calling and you cannot follow the tenets of logic that have been established for argument I have my proof that logic is not universal

I'm just waiting for you to admit you would have sex with children if society told you it was OK.

Personally I think that is fucked up and don't care what society says. Logic says it is wrong.

Case in point, I believe abortion is wrong and don't care what society thinks.

And I won't do that.

But you can't seem to comprehend that you cannot divorce yourself from the influence of the society you were raised in. Those beliefs have been ingrained in you since birth and reinforced your entire life by your interaction with countless people.

We are more the children of society than we are of our parents.

Why won't you do it?

I have explained to you why that question is impossible to answer because I was not raised in such a society and I cannot erase a lifetime of conditioning so as even to imagine I was.

I don't know why you can't grasp that concept.