I cannot get an ought from an is.  An is is just about something being there that is all.  It is not concerned about love, compassion or fairness or if they are good or not or whatever.

"John suffers so that suffering should be stopped and I am evil if I don't help" is understandable but it is not sensible. 

Even if morality is real, this is not morality.  It is an error.  Yet it is what everybody does.

Morality is not the important thing we are led to believe.

Your view of John's terrible situation is coming from a feeling that looks like it comes from thinking, from the head.  A lot of emotional arguments masquerade as intellectual and rational ones.

Morality in its true form is not really what we want or love.

Realising that makes the universe a cold place. What do I mean? I want to get an ought from an is and often pretend I can. But I cannot. It forces me to use feelings more than my head if I use my head at all.

Even God cannot make an is become an ought. God then is unworthy of worship for he cannot do what we really need. We need an ought to be an is or vice versa more than anything.

If I cannot have an is therefore ought morality then it is worse for an almighty creator God!

He is not under the threat of suffering like I am.

I wish I could get a moral ought from an is. God is not central then for that means more to me than him.

To create viruses and killer diseases is one thing if there is really possibly a God of love and compassion. He has to take ultimate responsibility for them. But it is another if morality is a crutch for we cannot bear the coldness we talked about. That is you hypocritically building the lie of morality on the terrible things and diseases that hurt others. To talk of God is to talk of one that is pro-hypocrisy.

Christians claim that you cannot get an ought from an is but God is the only exception. They say God is morality so if there is a God then there are moral oughts. That is totally illogical. No exceptions!  You cannot knit with melted butter.

The Bible God says to look at things and judge for ourselves that they are evil. It says if we are thinking people we will discern evil. These two points oppose Hume's observation that logic and observation are not about morality.   For Hume, logic is about avoiding incoherent or wrong thinking.  Logic tells you that if there is a God handling evil that there is a big plan at work.  Justice and love are not acts here but processes, sometimes very long ones.  The person suffering is the tip of the iceberg.  So if you walk on, it makes no difference.  Justice will be done. 


They say it is not a fallacy to think that reason shows you morality and/or observation shows you morality. Christians try to make God the ought is that is true while otherwise it is a fallacy. That is like saying contradictions are nonsense but God is a true contradiction one that is not nonsense. Such stuff is just insane sophistry.  Observing that somebody is pain tells you nothing about if you must or should help in a moral sense.


No Copyright