Salvation-Based Morality Is Inherently Immoral

Axiom 1: morality is founded on the effort to achieve a maximally fit balance between freedom of individual action and the objective metrics of impact in terms of the life and health of others.

Definition 1: salvation, as defined by (most) of global Christianity is predicated upon faith that Jesus was the Messiah and honest repentance of sin.

Premise 1:  a system of morality is grounded if and only of it is maximally  universaliazeable

Premise 2: the maximally fit universaliazeable morality is one built  on a system of  reciprocity predicted on restitution rather than punishment.

Premise 3: reciprocity requires that personally caused harms are personally made right.

Premise. 4: abrogation of P3 is, therefore, a willful abdication of morality and is therefore immoral

Premise 5: urging others to violate P3 therefore subverts morality into immorality

Premise 6: Christian morality, as per Definition 1, urges the violation of P3

∴Christian morality subverts morality into immorality.

You will notice that my proof is a sound deductive proof. And since  a sound deductive proof is Truth Preserving,  your arguments are irrelevant unless and until you can falsify my proof. That’s the advantage to proper epistemology – no matter if it’s Christians, Scientologists, or the adherents of  Voodoo… I don’t even need to know the words that they use to cloak their errors. And they must be errors, by logical necessity, if they cannot falsify my proof.

P.S, no “but you don’t believe in God therefor I win” is not a sound argument about morality. No, seriously, it isn’t.



12 thoughts on “Salvation-Based Morality Is Inherently Immoral

      • Ok. Say P2 were true. Most Christian Religions believe restitution is paid universally by the death of Christ whom they believe is God. Through their Love of God they can, if they wish, take part in the restitution, but it would never diminish the complete restitution given by God if they didn’t. If you are not Christian and do not believe Christ is God then their is no point in trying to prove anything about Christian morality since the basis of the arguments come from two different sets of reality.

            • … No, you didn’t. You didn’t do any such thing. How on Earth could you claim that with a straight face? Who do you think you’re fooling?

              I mean, seriously, you haven’t directly addressed it, let alone falsified it. Why lie about something like that? Seriously, why lie when your actual text is in black and white?

              I have already shown that my position is mathematically sound. There is no fallacy, restitution leads to a non-zero percent improvement over punishment. You evidently also have no idea what a circular argument is, let alone what an indefinable claim is.

              You, too, are done.

  1. Probably Christians will not share your axiom about morality, rendering the whole thing pretty useless. Anyway, an argument needs more than claims as premises. As these premises are what carry the weight of the argument, simply stating them and expecting anyone else to disprove them doesn’t work. Premises have to be agreed to be true by both parties, otherwise the party wanting to use them has to proof them explicitly.

    Personally, I share the conclusion, but not the way there.

    • I don’t require Christians to accept my proof, it’s still sound. And I would be happy to explain the reasoning behind P2. But it is certainly not merely opinion.

      And no, my premises do not have to be agreed to be my opponents. They are free to dispute the fact that a system of morality that seeks redressal of grievances rather than punishment will be more fit. I’m surprised you’re even questioning it done by it is mathematically sound.

      Zero percent of people who are not made to make restitution will be guaranteed to make restitution. A non-zero percent will make restitution if made to. Therefor P2 is mathematically, necessarily true, and restitution offers greater fitness than punishment.

      • An argument is valid, if it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion to be false.
        An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true.

        And for it to be sound, you have to agree on the premises. Sorry, claiming that everyone else has to so some (dis-)proving to do with the premises except yourself… Nonsense. If you and your opponent don’t agree on the premises, your argument is basically worthless.

        So, in other word, what you are saying is…

        1) X = 1
        2) Y = 2
        3) Z = X + Y
        4) Thus Z = 3

        Mathematically correct, but in real life worthless if someone can say “But actually X = 4.576.421”. If you and your opponent don’t agree on the value of X, either you can proof that X = 1 or you have to see that the argument is pointless, as it’s based on premises whose truth value you don’t share with your opponent.

        In other words, sorry, you sound like a believer here.

        • … yes, I know the difference between validity and soundness. And, no, for it to be sound the premises must be true. Agreement is irrelevant. I would suggest that you first learn what you’re talking about before lecturing about it. Just a suggestion.

          And, are you paying attention? I just supported my premise, to you, in writing. I did not say that everybody needs to disprove what I posted and I didn’t have to substantiate it. I did the opposite, in fact.

          And, no, that is not what I am saying. I identified, with mathematical soundness, that morality based on reparation rather than punishment must, necessarily, lead to greater good.

          So, I am neither perturbed that you think my argument is “basically worthless”, nor that I “sound like a believer”. The fact that you can’t address what I actually wrote is enough.

          You’re done.

  2. Ok. Let’s take a different approach. Maybe you can see what I’m trying to say.

    Restitution is something that takes place after an immoral act. In order to determine the restitution, the act would have to already have been determined to be immoral. Therefore, the type of restitution can not be used to determine if something is immoral since it has to be already determined in order for restitution to occur. This is the circular argument.

    Christian Morality is not based, as you say, on the desire for salvation as you leap from P1 to P2.

    Christian morality is based on respect for life. As you demonstrate in the statements you included at the end… If you are hungry, I will offer food… etc. How someone is saved is basically determined by God, and as a Christian, we may think we know the answers, but whether we do, or not, is irrelevant to whether something is moral or immoral.

    For the most part, Christian Morality is the same as non-christian morality. Since Morality is pretty consistent across religions, and even athiest, claiming that Christian morality is immoral is practically stating that all morality is immoral.

    The statement at the end in the graphic that says…. I set my own standards and I alone enforce them….. begs the question….. On whose authority do you make that statement? No civilized world would agree to that. — I killed that innocent person because I decided it was morally right… If you base your morality on respect for life… then go ahead and set your own standards… but keep that as your base for your standards. Then… whether you realize it or not. You will have Christian Morality.

    • You are completely ignoring Axiom 1. Taken with P1,P2, and P3 it forms a sound, objective metric. Nor is it subjective, the degree to which you gratuitously cause harm to life, health, or freedom of action determines the burden of restitution. Nor does disagreement scuttle this model, as it aims at a maximally fit solution and makes no pretense to absolute authority.

      I understand what you are saying.
      You’re just wrong. Fractally wrong.

      And you continue to ignore my actual argument and handwave the issue. No, Christian morality is not based on the respect for life (gays are an abomination, etc…) It is based on divine command theory with the ultimate standard being Judgment to Heaven and Hell. That does not include or require restitution and, is in fact a cosmic system of punishment rather than restitution, and thus is immoral by P3 again. And, in any case, as the Golden Rule predates Christianity and is secular, it isn’t “Christian morality”, but secular morality. So, at best, you are reduced to arguing that Christian morality is redundant, unoriginal, and superfluous.

      And the rest of your bit is nonsense. I set my moral code based on objective metrics and sound reasoning. I provided that reasoning. Relying on a deity is no more objective than relying on whatever I decide, or what any random Joe decides. You can’t dress up subjective judgements as objective just because you are claiming an absolute superbeing said it. And, at least, you know I exist, and I don’t condone slavery. So, bonus points for me.

      But, no, I don’t believe that you’re interested in debating with intellectual honesty. I addressed, in writing, the axiom and deductive framework which supports it. You have tried to claim you refuted premises you didn’t even address. You repeated that my argument is circular despite me pointing out, again, the objective metrics and sound logic which supports my case. As you aren’t interested in honest debate, I won’t be approving any more of your comments.

      Ciao ciao.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s