tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post8368540536402066849..comments2021-02-03T22:47:48.381-08:00Comments on Angra Mainyu's blog: Craig's metaethical argument, DCT, and the ontological foundation of moral goodnessAngra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-47041063803806711092015-03-29T17:34:16.449-07:002015-03-29T17:34:16.449-07:00Hey Narciso,
I'll take a look. But I suggest...Hey Narciso, <br /><br />I'll take a look. But I suggest you ask that your thread be moved to the "Moral Foundations and Principles" subforum (that's the subforum for ethical and metaethical arguments). <br /><br />P.S: You can contact me from TFT, using the email function. Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-76600392634447372372015-03-29T14:19:15.170-07:002015-03-29T14:19:15.170-07:00Hey Angra. I asked you help with a moral argument ...Hey Angra. I asked you help with a moral argument against gay sex some time ago, and I thank you for the help you've given me. As I still couldn't find another way of contacting you, I'm posting it here and I hope this is no trouble.<br /><br />There is another argument I wanted to tell you, and this time it is by Edward Feser. I started a thread over it at talkfreethought.org.<br /><br />I might be annoying in asking you help with it, but I've just now began to study philsophy more seriously and I still get confused while arguing. Here is the link:<br /><br />http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4491-Edward-Feser-s-argument-for-the-immorality-of-sex-(that-doesn-t-result-in-reproduction)&p=139635#post139635Narcisohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08017770745142918762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-12751620645256642122015-02-09T16:08:43.005-08:002015-02-09T16:08:43.005-08:00Okay, I'll take a look, and reply over there o...Okay, I'll take a look, and reply over there on the gay sex argument. <br /><br />And no problem, we all make spelling mistakes. Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-4581038647323842742015-02-09T14:27:42.551-08:002015-02-09T14:27:42.551-08:00Sorry about the "promiscous"/"promi...Sorry about the "promiscous"/"promiscual" issue. That was a brute error of mine (shamed really, I'll blame that on the fact that English is not my native language)<br /><br />Yes, I asked him to make his case and I allowed him to post it in my blog. I'm new to blogger so it's still in my name, but he calls himself Dexter on the internet. <br /><br />http://harpiaempirica.blogspot.com.br/2015/02/a-curious-argument-against-homosexual.htmlNarcisohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08017770745142918762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-66054016215579564402015-02-09T12:55:51.979-08:002015-02-09T12:55:51.979-08:00With regard to the examples of taking a road trip ...<br /><br />With regard to the examples of taking a road trip or playing football, that was not a reply to one of your opponent's arguments. It was a reply to one of your arguments. More precisely, you said earlier: "I think promiscuity is immoral because of the public health issues raised by it. An elevated number of sexual partners increases the chances of contracting STD's, for example. And this never is a problem only to the infected person."<br />However, if a person takes a road trip with her children, that increases the risk of car accidents for her and her children. Moreover, even driving a car increases the risk that a person - say - hits someone with her car - or even that he negligently hits someone . And playing rugby, increases the risk of suffering a number of serious injuries, or inflicting them on others. And so on. <br /><br />So, could you please clarify what you mean by "promiscuity" (i.e., how many sexual partners in how long a period?), and why you think it's immoral but the other activities that increase risks are not immoral? <br /><br />Another issue: you say: "The risk can be reduced by using condoms but one might simply switch "living promiscual lives" on the original argument for "living promiscual lives unprotected", which would explain why there is a higher % of gay people infected comparing to straight people. "<br /><br />That would not work, for a number of reasons, but for example: <br />1. If "tend to" means "increases the frequency of", or something like that, then we're back to the parodies involving having straight sex, driving a car, playing football or rugby, etc. <br />2. If "tend to" means "it's very likely that", or something like that, a higher frequency of STDs among gay people than among straight people does not remotely show that gay people very likely have multiple sexual partners unprotected. <br /><br />As before, I would suggest that you ask your opponent what he means by "tend to", and how many sexual partners he counts as "promiscuous" (or "promiscual", by which I reckon he means "promiscuous").Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-24932027477740750992015-02-09T12:19:25.631-08:002015-02-09T12:19:25.631-08:00
If the debate is in some forum, blog, etc., could...<br />If the debate is in some forum, blog, etc., could you post a link, please? <br /><br />Alternatively, could you invite your opponent to register either at secularcafe.org, or talkfreethought.org, and make his case? (sorry I posted a wrong address earlier, freeratio.org is closed). <br /><br />It would be much easier to address his argument without having to guess what he means or why he claims some behaviors are immoral. Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-77795127832673707892015-02-09T11:20:48.637-08:002015-02-09T11:20:48.637-08:00With regard to the anti-gay argument, can you ask ...With regard to the anti-gay argument, can you ask your opponent what he means by "tend to", and what he means by "promiscual"? (i.e., how many sexual partners in how long a period?).Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-89205839903419467822015-02-09T11:16:15.130-08:002015-02-09T11:16:15.130-08:00On the objective vs. subjective issue, that wouldn...On the objective vs. subjective issue, that wouldn't make morality subjective. For example, it is immoral to knowingly drive on the left side on the road in the US. It's not immoral to do so in the UK. That does not mean morality is subjective. In the context of his defenses of the metaethical argument, Craig either uses the term 'objective' inconsistently, or else he makes a number of false claims about what would be objective, or about what is required for something to be objective. <br />But in a usual sense of the words - which Craig appears to try to capture -, as long as whether a certain behavior is immoral is a matter of fact - not a matter of opinion -, and some behaviors are immoral (for example) premise 2 of the metaethical argument is true. <br /><br />With regard to the argument from objective cruelty, actually Craig uses the rather obscure expression "objective moral values", but he is arguing that moral goodness - and moral wrongness, moral badness, etc. - are all objective, that moral matters are objective matters, etc. <br />But to see this, one can try one of Craig's own arguments - as I did. <br />In order to illustrate what it means to say that something is objectively wrong, he explains that the Holocaust was morally wrong even if the Nazis believed otherwise, and it would have been morally wrong even if the Nazis had won the war and changed the world so that everyone left would believe it was good and right. ( http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-19 )<br />An argument from objective immorality wouldn't work as a parallel, because Craig already claims that immorality - or moral wrongness - is indeed objective (his own example of the Holocaust shows that). But one does not need an independent foundation of moral wrongness if one already has a foundation of moral duties, because to behave in a morally wrong way is to engage in behavior one has a moral duty not to engage in. Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-71025296902825675002015-02-09T07:57:22.056-08:002015-02-09T07:57:22.056-08:00Another problem I see with this is that it leaves ...Another problem I see with this is that it leaves us with a non-objective moral source. <br />Since the criteria used to label B are not the ones used to label A, in fact, it seems A is only wrong because people who do it tend to do B.<br /><br />It happens that in the case of gay sex it is possible/conceivable that in the future or on another possible world premise 1 would be false. Then we are left with no reasons that would make A immoral. In that case it would mean that morality is subjective rather than objective: anything people might do under which there is a tendency to do B also would be immoral. Going to nightclubs frequently might be a guess (although I'm in need of better examples that would account for the 'very likely' definition of 'tend to").<br /><br />Now a question about the argument from objective cruelty: I always thought a parallel for Craig's argument would be something like "argument from objective immorality". Because Craig isn't doing an argument from moral goodness, is he? Although I suppose he would never deny that DCT is based on a morally perfect being. Narcisohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08017770745142918762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-2536672207707507562015-02-09T00:20:16.717-08:002015-02-09T00:20:16.717-08:00That helps a lot, Angra.
The second parody may wo...That helps a lot, Angra.<br /><br />The second parody may work for Christians but surpsingly my opponent isn't one, this argument is based only on the risks a person takes while living promiscual lives.<br /><br />The problem with making analogies that include "increasing the risks of something bad happening" is that one can swtich that for "very likely something bad will happen". This is true for promiscual lives, I think, but not for road trips and footbal. Perhaps something related with the army will do, but all I can think of are not freely chosen by the individual. At least I don't know of people who "volunteered to go to war". <br /><br />The risk can be reduced by using condoms but one might simply switch "living promiscual lives" on the original argument for "living promiscual lives unprotected", which would explain why there is a higher % of gay people infected comparing to straight people. <br /><br />That's the problem of the argument. It is difficult to make an analogy to it under the "very likely" definition of "tend to do". <br /><br />How many other situations would fit in? To work, both A and B have to be freely chosen by the individual. B has to be a high risk activity.<br /><br />Again, thanks for your help.Narcisohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08017770745142918762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-63632915573887135052015-02-08T19:19:08.649-08:002015-02-08T19:19:08.649-08:00The argument from objective cruelty is a straightf...The argument from objective cruelty is a straightforward parallel to the argument from objective morality. <br /><br />P1: If an essentially maximally cruel being did not exist, objective cruelty does not exist. <br />P2: Objective cruelty does exist. <br />C: An essentially maximally cruel being exists. <br /><br />The argument is valid, and while it's obviously not sound, it parallels Craig - why would one be inclined to accept premise 1 of Craig's metaethical argument, but not P1 above? <br /><br />As for the point you raise, and "tend to do B" means "very likely to do B", then the second parody still works (and also, there are plenty of more direct arguments in that case, but that aside). <br />For example, a more precise parody goes as follows: <br /><br />Taking data from the US (it may vary elsewhere, but the point still holds in the US, and in any case it holds in most countries at least), 68.9% of women aged 15-44 had more than one opposite-sex sexual partner. The percentage of women aged 15-44 who had straight sex and had more than one sexual partner is higher than that (over 75%) because 8.6% had no opposite-sex sexual partners.<br />Only a minuscule percentage of those women with more than one opposite-sex sexual partner actually are widows (not part of the data, but just obvious because the percentage of widows that age is extremely low), and people who divorce and remarry behave immorally according to Christianity (or versions of Christianity encompassing the vast majority of Christians, and very probably your opponent). <br />In the case of men, the percentage of those who had more than one female sexual partner is 77.9, but 9.6% had zero, so the percentage of those who had (straight) sex who also had more than one female sexual partner is over 86%. <br /><br />Sources: <br />http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm#numberlifetime <br />http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf<br /><br />So, given the numbers, we get. <br /><br />(Q1'') People who have straight sex are very likely to have straight sex without being married. <br />(Q2'') Having straight sex without being married is immoral. <br />(C'') Having straight sex is probably immoral. <br /><br />Here, only first marriages count as "marriage", save for death of one spouse. Not that I believe (Q2''), but your opponent probably does. <br /><br />Regarding multiple sexual partners, I'd like to make a couple of points: <br /><br />1. Sexual activity with one sexual partner also increases the risk of STDs with respect to the risk with zero partners. Would that make sex with a single partner immoral? (reproduction can be achieved without actual sexual contact in many cases, by artificial insemination). <br />If the answer is "no", then increased risk is, per se, not enough to make sexual activity immoral, it seems. <br /><br />2. Some sexual acts are much less risky than others, and sometimes sexual act X1 with 10 partners would increase the risk less than sexual act X2 with 1 partner (for some adequate X1, X2). So, if the question is about increased risk of STD, there is plenty of ways (actually, not so uncommon ways) in which people (gay or straight) can have many with only minor increases in risk. <br /><br />3. As long as the people involved in the sexual relation are clearly both willing to take the risk, I don't see why it would be immoral, in general. We may stipulate that the risk is reduced considerably by means of different types of condoms. For that matter, playing football increases the likelihood of some serious negative health consequences due to impact, and the risk of causing such damage to someone else. And going on a road trip increases the risk of dying in a car accident - or having one's children killed in a car accident, if one has children and take them -, and also the risk of killing some other people. My point here also is that increased risk per se is not enough to show that a behavior is immoral. It depends on factors such as who bears the risk, the amount of risk, how much information the person has about that, etc. Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-52981743470377397932015-02-08T17:11:24.219-08:002015-02-08T17:11:24.219-08:00Wow, thanks Angra. You're a lifesaver.
With ...Wow, thanks Angra. You're a lifesaver. <br /><br />With regards to DCT, I understand the circularity problem. I'm eager to hear more of the argument from object cruelty.<br /><br />And with regards to the anti-gay-sex argument, <br /> <br />Your approach is brilliant. However:<br /><br />I think promiscuity is immoral because of the public health issues raised by it. An elevated number of sexual partners increases the chances of contracting STD's, for example. And this never is a problem only to the infected person.<br /><br />"Tend to do B" can mean that "are more likely to do B than those who don't do A" surely, but it can also mean "very likely to do B" (although there is less 'science' supporting the latter on the gay-sex case). In that case, it seems the above parodies are not apllicable with the second definition, are they? Narcisohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08017770745142918762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-39521381386762621122015-02-08T16:18:16.579-08:002015-02-08T16:18:16.579-08:00With respect to the argument against gay sex, it&#...With respect to the argument against gay sex, it's meant to be a probabilistic argument. <br /><br />However, there are a number of problems, such as: <br /><br />a. If "promiscual" means "having more sexual partners than the average", or "having many sexual partners", or something along those lines, then I would simply reject the claim that it's immoral. Why would having sex with more people be immoral? <br />b. If it means something else, I would ask what it means. <br />c. Even if it were immoral to have more sexual partners that the average, a gay person who has only one would not be incurring immorality. And given that a person may still choose what to do, it does not seem immoral. <br />d. If "tend to do B" means "are more likely to do B than those who don't do A", then one might reply with the following parody: <br /><br />(Q1) People who have sex are more likely to engage in a promiscuous lifestyle of their own free will than people who never have sex. <br />(Q2) Engaging in promiscuous lifestyles of one's own free will is always immoral. <br />(C) It's probably immoral to have sex. <br /><br />(Q1) is obviously true, and (Q2) is false (assuming I'm right about what they mean by "promiscual"), but the person making the argument believes it's true. <br />If "tend to do B" means something else, I would ask what it means. <br /><br />Another parody: <br /><br />(Q1') People who have sex tend to have sex out of wedlock of their own free will. <br />(Q2') Having sex out of wedlock of one's own free will is always immoral. <br />(C') It's probably immoral for people to have sex. <br /><br />(Q2') is false, but the person making the anti-gay-sex argument almost certainly believes it's true. <br />(Q1') is clearly true, even if "tend to" means "usually", or something like that (though that would be a problem for the argument on its own, but regardless). <br /><br />If you want to ask in greater detail, maybe you could start a threat at www.freeratio.org. Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-52978543242227299612015-02-08T16:07:56.585-08:002015-02-08T16:07:56.585-08:00Thanks, Harpia Empirica
Yes, the DCTist can say t...Thanks, Harpia Empirica<br /><br />Yes, the DCTist can say that maximal greatness is a property of God. <br />But then, one may ask: "Why is God maximally great?"<br />If the DCTist replies it's by definition, the move does not work: one may as well ask: "Why is the only omnipotent being that exists, maximally great?" (assuming such being existed)<br /><br />The DCTist might reply that he's maximally great because he has omnipotence, omniscience, moral goodness, etc., and generally all great-making properties to a maximal degree. But then, one may ask: "Why is the only omnipotent being that exists, morally good?"<br />It would be circular to reply that he's morally good because he's maximally great, so that option is not available. <br /><br />As usual, the theist might say that the ball has to stop somewhere, but the problem is that the non-theist can then make a parallel move - and there is always the <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-ontological-foundation-of-objective.html" rel="nofollow">argument from objective cruelty</a>- (I'm planning to post a full-length version of the hypothetical debate with more details later - including the argument from objective cruelty -, but I'm still improving some points.)Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-72981795923424406582015-02-08T15:18:13.988-08:002015-02-08T15:18:13.988-08:00I tried to send you an e-mail about this, but I co...I tried to send you an e-mail about this, but I couldn't find your address.<br /><br />It is a question about morality, however it isn't about Craig's argument or something like that. I couldn't find any appropriate place to leave this comment, but here we go.<br /><br />In an attempt to prove homosexual acts immoral, I've heard the following argument:<br /><br />(1) People that do A tend to do B<br />(2) B is immoral, hence<br />(3) A is immoral (or possibly immoral).<br /><br />This is the form of the argument, obviously. The person I was talking with replaced A with "homosexual sex" and B with "engaging in promiscual lifestyles". <br />My first reaction to this was similar to my reaction to the ontological argument. "Something here is obviously wrong!" I thought. I just can't find what. <br /><br />It seems that (3) does not follow from (1) or (2), but I'm in dark on how to show that. If we try to use the argument to make homosexuality sound immoral then all one has to do is to show how (1) would be in shaky grounds. But that's not what troubling me, it is the structure of the argument itself. It is interesting because It does not entail that morality is subjective, at least I don't think so. <br /><br />So what do you think of this argument? Are there any flaws on it or further defence of the premises is needed? Or can this flaws be spotted easily and I'm just looking to the wrong place?<br /><br />Again, I'm only posting this here because I couldn't find any other way to contact you. ThanksNarcisohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08017770745142918762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-75480284611594761392015-02-08T14:49:47.781-08:002015-02-08T14:49:47.781-08:00I've just seen this now. Great work, Angra!
...I've just seen this now. Great work, Angra! <br /><br />I'm a bit lost though. It seems as if, although "defining" God as the GCB seems to be an impossible move to the DCTist, a way out would be trying to make it sound like a property of God. However I'm not entirely if that is logically possible.<br /><br />Trying to point out to God with "It's the only GCB you see up there!" seems a bit weird and certainly flawed. Narcisohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08017770745142918762noreply@blogger.com