It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1. ¬ p → ¬ q (Premiss)
2. q (Premiss)
3. ¬ ¬ q (Double negation, 2)
4. ∴ ¬ ¬ p (Modus tollens, 1, 3)
5. ∴ p (Double negation, 4)
originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
That is a pretty wordy way of saying that you know people say "logic", but what they actually refer to is something like "common sense".
"What you want to know about 'knowing' isn't the facts that you know. What you want to know are the facts about HOW you come to know".
Logic has proven to be important but secondary to sentiment. An inspiring case of bad logic seems to trump a depressing instance of sound logic. Humans are not logical, let's not pretend like they will magically evolve into being other than their base nature.
1. If an external standard of morality does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist(Premiss)
So the first "moral values" portion of Craig's first premise commits him to saying something like God exists if the objective truth-makers of moral statements, moral beliefs, etc. [about what is morally good or morally bad] exist. And that doesn't make a lick of sense. After all, there are plenty on plausible of accounts of the objective truth-makers of moral statements, where those accounts are compatible with God's nonexistence. These include varieties of virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism. For example, a welfare utilitarianist could note that the moral statement "that instance of rape is morally bad" is true or false in virtue of the rape's negative effects on the victim's welfare, where there were other viable actions that did not harm the victim's welfare in this way. Or a virtue ethicist can point out the callousness that lies behind the act.
Craig has to reject all such plausible options for objective moral values, since welfare, character traits, etc. can exist even if God does not, and Craig is committed to moral values implying God's existence. And in doing this, Craig commits himself to a wildly implausible subjectivist position: divine command theory.
Furthermore, Craig opts for a strange, implausible position where moral values must be grounded in God's nature. So, for instance, "that instance of rape is morally bad" is true or false not because of the harm by the rape nor the callousness of the act nor any such plausible answer, but instead because God has such-and-such a nature. I'm sorry, but that's laughable. That answer has nothing to with why the rape is morally bad. It would be like responding to In virtue of what is "that plant is a mushroom" true, with well, biological properties/features are grounded in God's nature. It's a nonsense answer. Biological properties/features are grounded in the particulars things (such as organisms) that have those properties, not God. So the feature referred to by "is a mushroom", is grounded in the particular referred to by "that plant". No God required
Well if you're starting with a clearly false premise then you're obviously going to reach a wrong conclusion.
objective truth-makers of moral statements, moral beliefs, etc. [about what is morally good or morally bad] exist
My bad, I was mixing up subjective and objective and interpreting the first premise incorrectly. The first premise is indeed true, we cannot have objective moral values without some external moral standard.
The 2nd premise is the real problem, I would argue that this statement is absolutely true: "what one values as good and evil would merely be subjective preference and would have no objective meaning what so ever". All morality is subjective and relative, we use our ability to empathize with the feelings of others to develop our ethics. The only real weight a moral position can hold is when the majority of people agree something is immoral or moral, but it's still only relative to the beliefs of humanity, some other species somewhere far away could hold very different moral values, and their beliefs wont necessarily be any more right or wrong... there is no cosmic rule book at the center of the universe saying what is right and wrong.
"whatever sceptical arguments may be brought against our belief that killing the innocent is morally wrong, we are more certain that the killing is morally wrong than that the argument is sound… Torturing an innocent child for the sheer fun of it is morally wrong. Full stop."
When I assert 'this is good' or 'that is evil', I do not mean that I experience desire or aversion, or that I have a feeling of liking or indignation. These subjective experiences may be present; but the judgment points not to a personal or subjective state of mind but to the presence of an objective value in the situation.
In order for you to convince me that morals are subjective, you must be able to convince me that some moral atrocity such as "torturing babies for fun" is not morally wrong, but as Cave says I am more certain that torturing babies for fun is wrong than I am your position on subjective morality is sound.
Some how I predicted you would present this exact argument, well either that or rape. Harming another conscious being is usually seen as immoral from the perspective of another conscious being, for obvious reasons. Human beings are very emotional beings and it's very hard see the world without an emotional bias. However if we view the universe as simply a set of particles moving through space and obeying the laws of physics, then the immoral aspect of it disappears.
That doesn't have to diminish the meaning of the act from the perspective of conscious beings.
Not everything is black or white, for example is there an objective age at which a person is ready for sex, and any nation with a lower age of consent is wrong?