A problem with some religous views

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say the laws were arbitrary. A federal law requires 50% vote of each house and the Prez signature. Do you disagree? Where in there is there a reference to an absolute moral standard for the law to be passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are dodging the point of this discussion, but I am going to stick with you. How does a congressman decide to vote for or against a certain bill? Does he just flip a coin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahahaha!!! Are you really seriously suggesting that Congressmen vote based on an objective reference to absolute morality?????????

C'mon, dude. You have really crossed the line into delusion now!

The more you try to argue your case, the more absurd the assumptions you are forced to make. This occurs in many of these type of threads where someone appeals to some premise which is not factually sound and they are forced to invent rationalizations as they progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer my question, and answer it honestly. Don't make assumptions about what my response is going to be. Here's a hint: If a congressman was asked to vote on whether or not murder should be illegal, upon what is his vote based? Does he flip a coin? Perhaps he asks himself what will do the most good for his fellow citizens? Perhaps he considers what will be the best for himself personally? He has to base his decision on something, doesn't he? I'm asking you what you think that is.

And by the way, I haven't made a single assumption throughout this thread. I'm simply asking you questions to which you refuse to respond.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say the laws were arbitrary. A federal law requires 50% vote of each house and the Prez signature. Do you disagree? Where in there is there a reference to an absolute moral standard for the law to be passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are dodging the point of this discussion, but I am going to stick with you. How does a congressman decide to vote for or against a certain bill? Does he just flip a coin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahahaha!!! Are you really seriously suggesting that Congressmen vote based on an objective reference to absolute morality?????????

C'mon, dude. You have really crossed the line into delusion now!

The more you try to argue your case, the more absurd the assumptions you are forced to make. This occurs in many of these type of threads where someone appeals to some premise which is not factually sound and they are forced to invent rationalizations as they progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer my question, and answer it honestly. Don't make assumptions about what my response is going to be. Here's a hint: If a congressman was asked to vote on whether or not murder should be illegal, upon what is his vote based? Does he flip a coin? Perhaps he asks himself what will do the most good for his fellow citizens? Perhaps he considers what will be the best for himself personally? He has to base his decision on something, doesn't he? I'm asking you what you think that is.

And by the way, I haven't made a single assumption throughout this thread. I'm simply asking you questions to which you refuse to respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

A congressmen bases his vote quite often on what's in his best interests (re-election, legacy, popularity, party committee positions), which often align with his district, and occasionally I suppose align with his belief system and the law of the land. Rarely would I say the appeal to absolute morality is the yardstick. If I were a congressmen and we were voting on the issue of murder, my vote would be on the constitutionality of such a law and I'd vote against it as legislating such criminal code is not a function of the federal government. However you care to spin this, there is no way to get from here to providing evidence to your claim that all morality (and all laws) in each culture is derived from your god.


This was your claim:
[ QUOTE ]
Right and wrong comes from God whether you believe in Him or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

My response was: "And your evidence for such a claim?"

And since then you've just asked questions about how laws are passed which is not evidence of your claim, nor will lead to such evidence. Find another route fast.

[txag007]

The point of all this is that in order to classify something as "wrong" there must be some standard by which "right" is based? You claimed that there was not.

Your reasoning was that federal law is created by votes and a signature, not by deciding whether an action should be considered wrong and therefore made illegal. The reason I asked you to define the basis upon which a congressman makes up his mind is because in doing so he is appealling to some standard of "right".

If it is "voting yes here is "right" because it will get me reelected." or "voting no here is "right" because my party leadership does not support this bill and I want that committee chairmanship." what that congressman is appealling to is that "right" is defined as what is best for him personally.

If instead his decision is based upon what will keep more citizens of this country safe, then his decision is based upon utilitarianism. Either way, he is appealing to a standard of "right" in order to make his decisions. This is what you refused to admit earlier.

Now, we haven't even gotten to absolute morality yet. Do not jump to conclusions. What you have to realize first is that in order to make a decision, one has to have some sort of definition as to what defines "right".

[ QUOTE ]
The point of all this is that in order to classify something as "wrong" there must be some standard by which "right" is based? You claimed that there was not.

Your reasoning was that federal law is created by votes and a signature, not by deciding whether an action should be considered wrong and therefore made illegal. The reason I asked you to define the basis upon which a congressman makes up his mind is because in doing so he is appealling to some standard of "right".

If it is "voting yes here is "right" because it will get me reelected." or "voting no here is "right" because my party leadership does not support this bill and I want that committee chairmanship." what that congressman is appealling to is that "right" is defined as what is best for him personally.

If instead his decision is based upon what will keep more citizens of this country safe, then his decision is based upon utilitarianism. Either way, he is appealing to a standard of "right" in order to make his decisions. This is what you refused to admit earlier.

Now, we haven't even gotten to absolute morality yet. Do not jump to conclusions. What you have to realize first is that in order to make a decision, one has to have some sort of definition as to what defines "right".

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are unfounded assumptions. (1) I didn't say that you didn't need a standard for "right" in order to classify "wrong", I said you didn't need an absolute standard for right to legislate laws, (2) you are wrong in asserting that congressmen must resort to absolute morality in order to legislate.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Those are unfounded assumptions. (1) I didn't say that you didn't need a standard for "right" in order to classify "wrong", I said you didn't need an absolute standard for right to legislate laws,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what you said. Here it is:
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, in order to define murder and stealing as "wrong" by our laws, we have to have some standard by which "right" is defined.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No we don't. I'm not aware of the need to define a moral standard in our legislative process, outside of constitutionality.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(2) you are wrong in asserting that congressmen must resort to absolute morality in order to legislate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't said that. What I am going to say (if you will quit jumping to conclusions about where I am headed instead of letting me lead you there) is that the common standards which many use to define "right" in their decisions is incorrect in so much as there is a higher standard attached to them.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
The point of all this is that in order to classify something as "wrong" there must be some standard by which "right" is based? You claimed that there was not.

Your reasoning was that federal law is created by votes and a signature, not by deciding whether an action should be considered wrong and therefore made illegal. The reason I asked you to define the basis upon which a congressman makes up his mind is because in doing so he is appealling to some standard of "right".

If it is "voting yes here is "right" because it will get me reelected." or "voting no here is "right" because my party leadership does not support this bill and I want that committee chairmanship." what that congressman is appealling to is that "right" is defined as what is best for him personally.

If instead his decision is based upon what will keep more citizens of this country safe, then his decision is based upon utilitarianism. Either way, he is appealing to a standard of "right" in order to make his decisions. This is what you refused to admit earlier.

Now, we haven't even gotten to absolute morality yet. Do not jump to conclusions. What you have to realize first is that in order to make a decision, one has to have some sort of definition as to what defines "right".

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you freely admit that you think god puts a moral compass in people, why is it not feasible to think that a moral compass could be within us for reasons related to evolution, psychology, physiology, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those are unfounded assumptions. (1) I didn't say that you didn't need a standard for "right" in order to classify "wrong", I said you didn't need an absolute standard for right to legislate laws,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what you said. Here it is:
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, in order to define murder and stealing as "wrong" by our laws, we have to have some standard by which "right" is defined.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No we don't. I'm not aware of the need to define a moral standard in our legislative process, outside of constitutionality.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]



Your own post supports my statement.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we both agree about the above statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

We seem to have different concepts of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]


Mine's pretty simple. An argument has premises and conclusions. Its valid if its impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. (If valid its sound if the premises are true).

Here the premise is about me have a feeling. If I have that feeling the premise is true. The conclusion is that at least one of three things is true.

Its valid unless its possible that I have that feeling and none of the three possibilities are true.

What's different in your concept of logic?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This is my primary problem with your argument. It seems to me that you've tried to say, "I feel this belief is wrong, therefore either A, B, or C." I don't think you can logically make that step, since the statement "I feel this belief is wrong, therefore A, B, AND C" is just as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Jester

I should have avoided 'either/or' as its confusing, I'll change it to 'or' in future but I don't mean an exclusive or. The conclusion is true if any of A,B,C is true.

(I had to look it up in to check because 'either/or' doesn't imply 'not both' to me - the encyclopedia says its misleading and frequently implies the disjunction so I'll try to avoid it in future)

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What's different in your concept of logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

Every syllogism I've ever seen has at least two premises. You draw 3 contingent conclusions from 1 premise.

Basically you're confusing conclusion with premise.

Try this form:

Premise 1: All men are mortal
(Notice you can't draw a conclusion from this premise, at least not within the rules of logic)

Premise 2: Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.