tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post6093179728467826353..comments2024-02-15T19:40:29.872-08:00Comments on neopolitan's philosophical blog: WLC3: When Morality Arguments Are Badneopolitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-53852265656923330112017-03-02T17:27:44.677-08:002017-03-02T17:27:44.677-08:00I think this was addressed in WLC Being a Duffer. ...I think this was addressed in <a href="http://neophilosophical.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/wlc-being-duffer.html" rel="nofollow">WLC Being a Duffer</a>. You did spark a realisation on my part that any argument for god (at least those of this form) is begging the question. See <a href="http://neophilosophical.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-good-reason-for-wlcs-modus-tollens.html" rel="nofollow">A Good Reason for WLC's Modus Tollens</a>, which I'll post later today.neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-51486857011958542892017-03-02T06:27:10.534-08:002017-03-02T06:27:10.534-08:00I know I am responding to a very old comment, but ...I know I am responding to a very old comment, but in case anyone else finds this I would like to provide my feedback.<br /><br />I see a flaw in this reasoning that I would like to point out. The negation of a premise is NOT always true. This logical fallacy is coined "Denying the antecedent." <br /><br />Let me give an example. So I give statement (1) which is true (assuming no outside forces touch the spider). However, think about statement (2) which is the negation of it. This is NOT true. The spider may not want to move.<br />WRONG:<br /> (1) If the spider moves, then the spider is alive.<br /> (2) If the spider does NOT move, then the spider is NOT alive.<br /><br />The logically correct thing you are reaching for is the contrapositive. This is where you negate the statements and then flip the if-then statement. Here is the link that explains it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition<br /><br />Look at the example below. Statement (2) is ALWAYS correct which is the point of contraposition.<br />RIGHT:<br /> (1) If the spider moves, then the spider is alive.<br /> (2) If the spider is NOT alive, then the spider will NOT move.Addyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13144810803203909363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-72753315343044479942012-07-01T22:31:27.320-07:002012-07-01T22:31:27.320-07:00You have clearly explained how William Lane Craig ...You have clearly explained how William Lane Craig carefully words his morality argument in a way that contends there are objective moral values and duties, and these exist because of God. <br /><br />You are right that Sam Harris would be able to articulately, and hopefully successfully, debate William Lane Craig on the latter point, that is that objective moral values and duties exist, not because of a God, but as a result of people’s need to “maximise human flourishing”, in order to support their well being and consequently their survival. <br /><br />He would explain the concept of well being as being comparable to the concept of human health, while it cannot be explicitly defined by a list of attributes; it clearly has a set of states, which contribute to a person’s happiness. He typically asks people to imagine the worst kind of human suffering, and once imagined, people would need to label this suffering as “bad”. Once such a label is used, to achieve what can be labeled as “good”, people will of course aim to avoid such suffering in the natural world. <br /><br />When morality is viewed as a set of facts related to what encourages human well being, morality is no longer open to opinion, nor should those who have shown no moral expertise (serial killers for example) be consulted as to what helps humans to flourish. Also the repetitive morally relative statements like, “well it’s part of their religion, so who are we to say they shouldn’t sacrifice the goats” will disappear from human speech. <br /><br />Morality belongs to the domain of Science, just as human health does. Once morality is seen through such a lens, the discourse of morality can no longer contain words such as, “relative” and the search for right answers to questions of human flourishing can begin. <br /><br />In my opinion, William Lane Craig and Sam Harris are both right, in that objective moral values and duties do exist, Craig is simply wrong in believing they exist because of a God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com