AJ, I would propose the following definitions for “right” and “wrong.”
Right - In conformity with the truths of Natural Law.
Wrong - Not in conformity with the truths of Natural Law.
It is my argument that in the absence of God, and thus the absence of Natural Law, there exists no such thing as “right” and “wrong” with respect to morality.
What is “Natural Law”?
Why must materialism and free will be mutually exclusive? Why must the existence of non-physical entities (souls) be posited in order to explain consciousness and rationality?
If it is really true that
then even if we accept that the physical universe is wholly deterministic (which it probably isn’t), then this does not imply that free will is impossible.
What are you looking for an entity actually named ‘Natural Law’?
(a) is fair game: live by the precise definition, die by the precise definition. In other words, if you wish to have your statements evaluated as formal logical statements, you’ll need precise definitions of “a being’s nature” (inherent properties? tendencies? propensity to stay alive?), “life” (survival?) and “ought” (I/we approve or dissapprove?) that do not simply refer to other ill-defined terms like “right,” “wrong,” “good,” “bad,” etc.
If I have done (b), I welcome the quote of where I did that.
I personally agree with everything you say here. It is my personal opinion that God and free will do exist, and that determinism is bogus. It is also my personal opinion that God and his realm exist outside of space and time and that we cannot comprehend it.
I doubt that’s what you were getting at, though. Perhaps you mean to say that there is simply the possibility of “something” outside of physical time and space that is incomprehensible to us but that does not exhibit the traits of a God figure. If that’s the case, I can’t see how it figures in our discussion since these things (since they don’t exhibit the traits of God) are outside the realm the Universe operates in and thus wouldn’t affect it.
Morality is to me what I defined it initially. Do not mistake the quote from Mr. Ruse as changing the definition. Morality as I definited it does not exist to the naturalist, but you could still use the term in a loose sense as Mr. Ruse does when describing the biological adaptation.
While I should have been more clear, those statements aren’t contradictory. The second statement applies to what humans can conceive, the first statement is far more broad. It pertains to what can possibly be conceived, not limited to the human mind.
No, it does not imply that. Knowing what will happen does not mean that the events have been predetermined.
That is logically impossible. As I said earlier, God’s moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from his moral nature. God cannot impute a contradictory moral code because doing so is inconsistent with his nature.
…but…
Circular definitions.
AJ,
All words depend on other words for their definitions. In that sense, every definition is circular.
That was in my initial set of definitions. AJ thinks the definition circular, however. You are free to propose a new one.
Or natural rights, the NAP, property rights, or the foundations thereof (which is what I presume natural law proponents imply natural law to be). Note that I’m not disagreeing that the NAP, property rights, etc. are great and important ideas. I am strictly discussinf the issue of logical proof - does a valid proof exist or not?
No. The words of language are not the concepts themselves (i.e., the referents). Instead, the words of language are references of the referents. A circular definition exists when one reference depends on the other reference and where that other reference depends on the original reference. A non-circular definition exists when the references ultimately reference a referent and not an other reference.
Circular:
reference <—> reference
Non-circular:
references —> referent
If you claim that natural law is right and right is natural law, then the references are merely referencing each other and not a particular referent. However, you may say that natural law is right and right is referent X.
In that sense perhaps, but you used “right” to define “natural law,” then used “natural law” to define “right.” Whatever you call that, it is unsatisfying, and I assume unintentional so can you please rephrase the definitions?
If humans are only the total of their atoms, then their behavior is the result of that conglomeration. Something else must exist for them to behave apart from what their atoms would “make” them do. If something else does not exist then free will is illusory.
If the physical universe is all that there is, then it must be wholly deterministic. However, if there is something outside of the universe, then free will is possible.
Haha, I laughed a dorky laugh to myself. I need to find a picture of “Natural Law” and post it as the referent!
the universe is deterministic. if theres something outside it, whatever it is is of no consequence to the things it is seperated from and not determined by it.
and yes, I am a moral realist who believes in moral agency.
how could this be? because of compatibilism.
There is a section in the link I gave you labeled: Metaphysical Basis for Natural Rights, right after that is the espitemological basis for it. I think you may find your answer there.
Natural law provides a system of rights and rights are legitimaly enforcable claims.
I sincerely hope that that is a joke. If I say that “imagine a red sofa” but I do not provide a “picture” of “red”, then I did not pose a circular definition because both the speaker and the listener understand the referent “red”.
unless they dont.
And what is a legitimately enforceable claim? What causes a claim to be legitimately enforceable?