Lol, ok. So an answer to my question?

Nothing wrong with vanilla ice cream.
There is a question in there. Do you have an answer?
Also, Im not arguing for or against free will. We can discuss that if you want but its not what Im getting at.

Are you restricted to a one paragraph reading limit? Respond to the rest of what I said. At least show you understand the analogy. Thats literally the least you could do and have it still be considered a discussion.

Social customs. Societal needs — god must be atheist

Slavery is moral then? It fits both those categories.

You first lol
How about you address the rest of my post? The part you quoted is my claim, what follows is the reasoning for that claim. That reasoning is what you need to address.
My point is, knowledge of what someone is going to choose does not predetermine what they will choose. Its just knowledge of what they will choose.
Ill try another example.
If you come up to me and ask me for a cookie, and I know that you are sincere in your desire for me to give you a cookie, then I know you are going to take the cookie when I take it out of my cookie bag and offer it to you. I know you will take the cookie because you sincerely asked me for the cookie. You’ve still made the choice, i just knew what it was going to be.
The knowledge and the free will are not mutually exclusive, as you claimed.
Now, maybe you do not believe in free will in which case your initial statement makes no sense. Omniscience is mutually exclusive with something you dont think exists? That would be gibberish. (Im just covering the bases, im not saying you dont believe in free will but in case you dont’t...your statement is nonsense).

No they arent. Knowledge of what someone is going to choose to do doesnt effect whether or not they have a choice. If you think they have a choice to start with, someone else knowing what they will choose doesnt magically take that away.
For example, if offered vanilla or chocolate ice cream and I choose chocolate cuz I hate vanilla, thats my exercise of free will (if you believe we actually have it to start with). Foreknowledge doesnt change that, how would it (unless you share your foreknowledge with me and that effects my choice but then thats MY foreknowledge of my choice effecting things.)?

Id bet ya if there was some way to tell...unless YOURE the troll! :brow:

Alcontali

Youre being trolled dude.

.because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

I dont think so, because even if god DID do everything and that the answer to philosophical questions like what is moral or immoral is according to what god says it is, we would still need to determine what that is using the tools we have. Since nobody has a direct line to god, we have to use the tools we do have. Philosophy is one of those tools.
You could make the same objection to a world without god, swapping god for the laws of physics for example.
Scientific discussion is misplaced in philosophy because if the universe follows the laws of physics then the answer to all philosophical questions becomes “because science says so”.
Could do the same thing with clearly philosophical categories, like ethics. Without getting into the weeds of where ethics actually come from: Ethical discussion is misplaced in philosophy because if X is the full description of ethics then the answer to all philosophical questions “X did it”.
In any of those examples, its still worth philosophical discussion because knowing the source of all things (or ethical things, or scientific things) only answers the question of source. There are so many answers and questions on the way to an ultimate source that having a clear answer of that source (“god did it”) alone wouldnt give us much of a framework at all, none Id say.
So I disagree.

Ok, I think I understand you now.

Im not treating them like they are the same thing, Im referencing one to gain information about the other. You dont think a persons past actions should be considered in moral judgements? Hitler is helping at a soup kitchen, you just have to conclude he’s a good person even if you know his history?

Ah, ok. In what way did I make a category error? Which categories?

You said:
“DingoJones This assumes a scalar metric of moral action that accumulates and follows the usual arithmetic rules. Why assume that?“

I didnt make that assumption. You are reframing what Im saying as a “scalar metric of moral action that accumulates and follows the usual arithmetic rules.” and then asking me why I went with a “scalar metric of moral action that accumulates and follows the normal arithmetic rules”. I didnt, you just said I did.
The reason why this is a sticking point for me is because your reframing explicitly imposes a set of rules (“arithmetic rules”) on the expression of my views, but thats just your reframing of it. I didnt assume that framing, you did.
If thats your only query, then I feel like its been answered now. Not much more for me to add so your welcome to the last word.

No problem. :)

...you realise my use of the word “debt” is metaphorical, right?

I dont know what to tell you. I disagree that any structures I used meets the minimum necessary requirements to be considered a mathematical model and therefore subject to any other mathematical parameters. Even you used the word “approximate”, which is hardly sufficient for you to then smuggle in the other mathematical parameters such as a scalar metric.

Thats what I would consider a principal based ethic (“dont do this”), which I addressed in the OP.
Ok, so unintentional consequences...where do we put them on ethical scales here? Thats a good question.
I think intention is a determinate factor in judging right and wrong, in the sense that a certain threshold of due diligence is being met. As long as the person has met that threshold (aren't being totally thoughtless or grossly ignorant of the consequences of their actions) then we dont need to put those unintended consequences on our ethical scale.

Oops, please delete.

Ok, gotchya :up:

I think I disagree with that, but you had mentioned that you would argue that the heat of passion would make it somewhat forgivable if traded for 100 million lives? Id like to hear your argument.

Well, I don’t conflate the law and morality, I think of the two as distinct from each other, so youre really asking a different question from my point of view.

None of what I said was intended to follow mathematical rules. The terms were meant in a broad sense, to illustrate my points.

↪DingoJones If the murder were in the heat of passion, then I would argue that saving 100 million lives somewhat forgives that. If saving 100 million lives is an excuse to kill someone, then that’s not okay. — Noah Te Stroete

Ok, lets hear the argument.

But would his saving of lives be considered in the balance of morality?

Exactly. Thats essentially what Im asking. Why couldnt he? It follows the same rationale. If the ball kicking was ok, why not the murder?

Yes, i agree an accidental act isnt really a moral one (unless someone was so careless it was immoral I suppose), but what if the person saved the lives to get girls? Its still saving 100 million people.

Sure, I get it, an enlightened, non-judging consideration. Im explicitly asking in the context of judging however, so that doesnt answer the OP.

So you think intention is definitive of how the balance is struck? Does it really matter why the person saves 100 million lives? Wouldn't you be glad he did it? (Provided the 100 million lives were the moral surplus of course).

Lol, ya I know. Sounds silly when you put it that way. However, I wouldnt say that those actions you used balance out.
Now, it doesnt really matter where you think those balances are so much as whether you think that a balance (and surplus of either morality or immorality) is possible. We can make it easier to consider in the interests of exploring the idea. So, what about a person who spends all day, every day working at saving lives...lets say the save 100,000,000 lives a year. Once a year, he takes a day off and stalks the streets, chooses a dude at random and kicks him square in the nuts. Back to work the next day. Does he earn anything for saving so many people? What kinda asshole goes “fuck those 100,000,000 people and their friends and family's grieving, I aint letting nobody kick me in the balls!”? Lol
Also, if you object to the surplus of good, why not the surplus of bad in a redemption story? Why does it work one way and not the other?

:lol:
Thank you for putting in the effort on that one.

Its amazing how low his reading comprehension is. You answered his question in the first line of your response, but it just doesnt sink in.

Well not being omnibenevolent is not the same as being cold and distant. God could be mostly good but makes certain sacrifices for his plan or mysterious ways etc.

What do you mean by “too simple”? Sometimes things are done simply, such as the obvious logical contradiction of omnibenevolence and the horrible death of the fawn. How complex does it need to be to satisfy you?
Also, what is gods “grace”?

I think you're conflating different things, if by "science" you mean Francis Bacon's method based on "induction" or "empiricism", that's a completely separate institution or method from "deduction", aka logic / reason or "rationalism". — IvoryBlackBishop

I didnt intend to mash all those things together, but to identify each separately as things that cannot be used to detect/ interact with the supernatural. Basically, all the tools we have to figure things out.

I meant it in the sense of those things which exist outside the ability to detect or test or interact with science. Ghosts, magic, gods etc...the things that rationality, logic, reason, science etc cannot be used upon.

The point I'm trying to make is that people can act in a "religious" or "fanatical" way about things even if they aren't traditionally what is defined or perceived as a "religion". — IvoryBlackBishop

Sure, but I think it makes a big difference if the fanaticism is making an appeal to the supernatural. Its easier to justify the most extreme acts/beliefs when you can measure them against things beyond the natural world (eternal life in paradise, an eternity of suffering, seeing all your dead loved ones, satisfying the plans of a divine, perfect being etc.)

Thats not what Im doing. Im not saying im right because Im more educated than you, I dont know what education you might have, or from where. If you have actual experience in philosophical academia, you should reference that instead of the article.
You made a claim about consensus in academia, and referenced that article. I made a counter claim to that view, and referenced actual academic consensus. Yes, Im basing that off of my own experience but Im not trying to cite credentials or make an appeal to authority.
On one hand we have actual experience of philosophical academia, and in the other we have the results of a google search. Can you make a case as to why the latter should hold more weight?

Im telling you whats taught in the institutions of learning dedicated to the subject matter, the result of long history of academics debate and study. You are welcome to reject that as definitive of the subject matter, and embrace whatever other source you like but you are factually incorrect about whats actually consensus in academia. This is a problem of the uneducated, they lack the knowledge of what's important in academics.
As has been pointed out to you, you can have a valid opinion that ISNT based on academia, Im not making an appeal to academic authority here. You are wrong about whats being taught in academia though, unless you are referencing specifically theist academia. (Which you didnt).

Nicely fact checked sir.