tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post7764261013352702159..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: Bridging the Gap in Communicating about MoralsRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-27481284407317455262013-12-19T22:40:56.788-05:002013-12-19T22:40:56.788-05:00Not for moral ontology--it would work as a descrip...Not for moral ontology--it would work as a description of our moral epistemology. It just wouldn't tell us anything about the ontology (the grounds or lack thereof). :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-62660039510471319452013-12-17T18:26:12.030-05:002013-12-17T18:26:12.030-05:00I was just thinking a bit more about your reply......I was just thinking a bit more about your reply....I suppose the atheist might at the most be able to say whilst they believe moral truths exist in the same way as mathematical truths do, the reason humans have - or at least feel they have - an obligation towards moral truths is because evolution has selected and conferred these feelings of obligation on us for survival purposes, whereas knowing mathematical truths doesn't help with survival (or maybe they do?) and therefore we don't feel obligated to allign ourselves with mathematical truths in the same way. D'you think the atheist could go that route?Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-54982603038094631852013-12-17T13:31:46.462-05:002013-12-17T13:31:46.462-05:00OK, thanks. Very helpful.OK, thanks. Very helpful.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-32187456965375935022013-12-15T23:15:44.392-05:002013-12-15T23:15:44.392-05:00Hi James, I suppose they could. Though it is worth...Hi James, I suppose they could. Though it is worth noting there are some interesting discussions going on right now about whether or not God is necessary for logical laws (and therefore, mathematical truths, because these are certainly alike). As one who believes in God's necessary being and as the foundation in every possible world, I actually don't think it's possible--that is to say, per impossible, if God were not to exist, then everything follows, including 2+2=4 being incorrect.<br /><br />However, I think there are a number of relevant differences between moral facts and facts about math. First, and perhaps most importantly, moral facts constitute perceived obligations that we owe in light of those facts, and those facts only. That is, the fact that we should love our brothers constitutes a prescriptive obligation on me to do so, whereas with math, no such mathematical truth constitutes an obligation on my part--not even to get it right.<br /><br />Even if we construe such an obligation (i.e., if you want to get the answer right, you should put "4" at the end of 2+2=), such an "ought" is not imperative, just essential to a specific activity. But no one wants to say that moral values are equally so described ("if you want to be moral, do this"); rather, we think that, whether or not you care, you are morally obligated to do such-and-such.<br /><br />Another difference is that, because of moral duties, it seems utterly bizarre that moral facts should exist in the absence of humans. Remember, on a naturalistic system, there were billions of years of moral values just being out there necessarily, constituting obligations on presumably no one--it's like the moral realm "knew we were coming" (as reported by Craig), which of course it could not!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-23335010278504655272013-12-11T19:39:34.473-05:002013-12-11T19:39:34.473-05:00Hi Randy, I haven't read a whole lot on the Mo...Hi Randy, I haven't read a whole lot on the Moral Argument but just wondered if the atheist could argue that morals values are objectively true in the same sense as, say, mathematical truths? That is, I presume the sum "2+2=4" is true whether God exists or not (and also whether or not creatures exists who are intelligent enough to figure out the answer to the sum) so couldn't the atheist say the statement "torturing babies for fun is wrong" is just necessarily true regardless of whether God exists or not?Jamesnoreply@blogger.com