Source: this is how the term “morality” is generally actually used by people.
I am sorry, can I see your credentials for confidently making naked assertions about how people actually use the term “morality”? Or at least some evidence?
Um. You’re not really good at geometry, are you? :-D
I assume it goes without saying that I’m talking about shapes in a flat euclidean plane because listing every random corner case is a waste of everyone’s time. (EDIT: yeah… fuckin’ parallelograms. Sneaky bastards.)
...
The evidence for this particular description of morality includes such as the fact that people confidently call some things good and some things bad, “even if $(RANDOM_COUNTERFACTUAL_CONDITION)”, and thought experiments like the Gandhi murder pill and, well, there’s too much subject to describe in one comment.
But that’s not really important, and you’re not going to believe me anyway. More generally, regardless of the specific form of the morality predicate, God can’t make one mathematical object be something else. He can only modify physical circustances. For example, if morality was “murder is good, except at midday” he could make it always be midday by messing with the sun or something, which would affect when murder was good.
I’m talking about shapes in a flat euclidean plane
Yes, you are bad at geometry.
And, of course, God is not constrained by your favorite dimensionality of space or by your preferences for Euclid over, say, Riemann.
God can’t make one mathematical object be something else. He can only modify physical circustances.
Why is that? You seem to be very certain about limitations of God. You also seem to imply that morality is a mathematical object. That doesn’t look obvious to me.
And, of course, God is not constrained by your favorite dimensionality of space or by your preferences for Euclid over, say, Riemann.
No, but my topic of discussion is. God can do whatever he likes, it doesn’t change the facts of Euclidean geometry. Or Riemannian geometry for that matter. Or both of them together. Or any other type of geometry, or number theory or whatever.
You also seem to imply that morality is a mathematical object.
The same is true of every other abstract concept that divides thingspace into things-that-are and things-that-aren’t. Except there are good reasons to think that morality in particular divides thingspace in a way that doesn’t care about little XML tags attached to physical objects and actions (which are the sort of thing that God could mess with, being omnipotent regarding the physical world).
You seem to be very certain about limitations of God.
Perhaps you think that “God can override logic” isn’t logical nonsense, or you prefer not to use logic. Either approach seems rather pointless as far as getting useful results is concerned.
Um. You’re not really good at geometry, are you? :-D
Huh? Not at all. Consult wikipedia for starters.
I am sorry, can I see your credentials for confidently making naked assertions about how people actually use the term “morality”? Or at least some evidence?
I assume it goes without saying that I’m talking about shapes in a flat euclidean plane because listing every random corner case is a waste of everyone’s time. (EDIT: yeah… fuckin’ parallelograms. Sneaky bastards.)
...
The evidence for this particular description of morality includes such as the fact that people confidently call some things good and some things bad, “even if $(RANDOM_COUNTERFACTUAL_CONDITION)”, and thought experiments like the Gandhi murder pill and, well, there’s too much subject to describe in one comment.
But that’s not really important, and you’re not going to believe me anyway. More generally, regardless of the specific form of the
morality
predicate, God can’t make one mathematical object be something else. He can only modify physical circustances. For example, if morality was “murder is good, except at midday” he could make it always be midday by messing with the sun or something, which would affect when murder was good.Yes, you are bad at geometry.
And, of course, God is not constrained by your favorite dimensionality of space or by your preferences for Euclid over, say, Riemann.
Why is that? You seem to be very certain about limitations of God. You also seem to imply that morality is a mathematical object. That doesn’t look obvious to me.
No, but my topic of discussion is. God can do whatever he likes, it doesn’t change the facts of Euclidean geometry. Or Riemannian geometry for that matter. Or both of them together. Or any other type of geometry, or number theory or whatever.
The same is true of every other abstract concept that divides thingspace into things-that-are and things-that-aren’t. Except there are good reasons to think that morality in particular divides thingspace in a way that doesn’t care about little XML tags attached to physical objects and actions (which are the sort of thing that God could mess with, being omnipotent regarding the physical world).
Perhaps you think that “God can override logic” isn’t logical nonsense, or you prefer not to use logic. Either approach seems rather pointless as far as getting useful results is concerned.