Can Morality Be Objective Without God?

Author: MagicAintReal

Posts

Total: 438
#121
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Either moral realism or moral non-realism is true so all we need to do is determine which position is more rational than the other. Moral realism is the view that moral statements can be factually true and moral non-realism is the view that they cannot be. If moral non-realism were true, then none of these statements could be factually true:


(1) moral progress possible.

(2) there can be a moral highground

(3) people's moral judgments can be incorrect

(4) in the case of two competing moral views on something, one person can be more right than the other.

(5) compassion is moral and cruelty is immoral

(5) fairness is moral and unfairness is immoral

(6) killing another person without sufficient justification is morally wrong

(7) punishing an innocent person is morally wrong

(8) raping an infant is morally wrong

(9) moral discussions are not a 0 sum exercise

(10) cowardice is of bad moral character and courage is of good moral character.

Based on aggregate trends in human behavior, throughout human history, none of these statements are indicated to be opinion-based truths. No justice system on earth, for instance, adheres to the principle punishing innocent people is morally good. Yet, moral non-realists would have you believe that this absurd conclusion, if it were accepted as true by someone, is just as rationally warranted as the opposite - that punishing innocent people is morally wrong.

So in short, the weight of the evidence (rationally, empirically, and prima facie intuition) strongly favors moral realism. In addition, moral realism is the prevailing view amongst academia and the public so in order to override the status quo, you must prevent a strong case to overcome that as well as all of the evidence in favor of realism. Until then, realism is the more rational position.

#122
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
The body maintains homeostasis whether you value contentment or not.
Your body values contentment.
Only if you are able to maintain normal serotonin levels.

Those who have very little and those who have more than enough are often driven by something far beyond the simple desire to maintain their current status.
Not really.
Both of those types of people, whether they strive for materialistic products or not, are inherently trying to survive on the cellular level and this is universal.
So are you suggesting a moral principle or merely a biological principle?

And if you are suggesting a moral principle, please explain how it applies to those who have very little and those who have more than enough.
Topic's author
#123
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
So are you suggesting a moral principle or merely a biological principle?
I'm saying the two are inextricably linked.

And if you are suggesting a moral principle, please explain how it applies to those who have very little and those who have more than enough.
Those who have very little cannot survive in temperatures below a certain point, without food, and without water.
Those who have more than enough cannot survive in temperatures below a certain point, without food, and without water.
Both of these types of people can behave towards others.
Both of these types of people can consider others' strive to maintain homeostasis to be universal with respects to actions towards homeostatic others.
Both of these types of people can determine morality objectively with this principle.
#124
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Either moral realism or moral non-realism is true [false choice/false tautology] so all we need to do is determine which position is more rational than the other [if you say so]. Moral realism is the view that moral statements can be factually true and moral non-realism is the view that they cannot be [these are not the only two options, you neglect to mention consensus morality]. If moral non-realism were true, then none of these statements could be factually true:


(1) moral progress [is] possible with consensus morality.

(2) there can be a moral highground with consensus morality.

(3) people's moral judgments can be incorrect with consensus morality.

(4) in the case of two competing moral views on something, one person can be more right than the other with consensus morality.

(5) compassion is moral and cruelty is immoral with consensus morality.

(5) fairness is moral and unfairness is immoral with consensus morality.

(6) killing another person without sufficient justification is morally wrong with consensus morality.

(7) punishing an innocent person is morally wrong with consensus morality.

(8) raping an infant is morally wrong with consensus morality.

(9) moral discussions are not a 0 sum exercise with consensus morality.

(10) cowardice is of bad moral character and courage is of good moral character with consensus morality.

Based on aggregate trends [in other words, CONSENSUS] in human behavior, throughout human history, none of these statements are indicated to be opinion-based truths [although they are not uniform or universal and many cultures for thousands of years and many even today commit what we would consider atrocities and yet they believe it is "the justice of the gods"]. No justice system on earth, for instance, adheres to the principle punishing innocent people is morally good [except for those that deport children to war zones]. Yet, moral non-realists [an absurd term] would have you believe that this absurd conclusion [of your own fabrication], if it were accepted as true by someone, is just as rationally warranted as the opposite - that punishing innocent people is morally wrong [not according to our current consensus].

So in short, the weight of the evidence (rationally, empirically, and prima facie intuition) strongly favors moral realism [given your ridiculous parameters and false choice]. In addition, moral realism is the prevailing view amongst academia and the public [CITATION NEEDED] so in order to override the status quo, you must prevent a strong case to overcome that as well as all of the evidence in favor of realism. Until then, realism is the more rational position [in your personal opinion].


Everyone believes in consensus morality.  Everyone has always believed in consensus morality.  From primal tribes to Roman cities to modern day.

Topic's author
#125
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Dude, I would love for you to vote on the debate, you can do it.
#126
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Dumb question, but what is 'consensus morality'?

Do you mean a set of arbitrary rules that a large marjority of people agree to abide by?

#127
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Consensus is the basis of the modern legal code.

Laws (codified morality) apply strictly to territories.

What is legal (morally acceptable behavior) in Nevada may or may not be legal (morally acceptable behavior) in New York or Paris or Riyadh.



#128
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Ah, so you do mean "a set of arbitrary rules that a large majority of people agree to abide by".

That seems to imply that if there were no formal laws (on an isolated uncharted desert island say) I could kill you in cold blood but it wouldn't be immoral.

Re exists and real, I would say the way they are used is such that 'X exists' and 'X is real' convey exactly the same intuitive concept, but that concept cannot be defined (other than circularly).



#129
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Ah, so you do mean "a set of arbitrary rules that a large majority of people agree to abide by".
Not necessarily "arbitrary", our "moral instincts" probably serve some evolutionary purpose, specifically allowing large numbers of humans to co-exist and cooperate.  Morality is primarily social.

That seems to imply that if there were no formal laws (on an isolated uncharted desert island say) I could kill you in cold blood but it wouldn't be immoral.
If you thought it was worth the risk (of attempting and failing to kill) and you thought you would be better off, and you could live with any personal guilt or regret you might or might not feel afterwords, and there were no other people you would have to explain this to, then, take your best shot (a la Walking Dead).  If you believe my survival diminishes your chances of survival, then I am automatically an "enemy combatant" and must be dealt with at such.

Re exists and real, I would say the way they are used is such that 'X exists' and 'X is real' convey exactly the same intuitive concept, but that concept cannot be defined (other than circularly).
Morality is "real", well, at least as "real" as "love" or any other purely qualitative concept.

In order for it to cross-the-line into the quantifiable (scientific), it must be explicitly defined to correlate with empirical data.
#130
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Either moral realism or moral non-realism is true by law of excluded middle.

"Consensus morality" does not address whether moral statements are true based on fact or opinion. You can have consensus on facts and that's why there's often consensus in the first place. 
#131
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
An 8 year old doesnt need to first go through an academic exercise where they build their moral foundation. It's intuitive. Why can't we know of facts using our intuition?
I contend that what you call intuition is actually learned behavior. Your proposition that it is morally wrong to punish an innocent person is a perfect example. Children are notorious for punishing innocent people in the form of bullying. An 8 year old child must be taught that it is wrong to do that which then serves as a moral standard from which to base all future action.
#132
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
"Consensus morality" does not address whether moral statements are true based on fact or opinion.
Moral statements can be factually true but only when applied to an existing moral standard. "Consensus morality" exists because of existing moral standards created through learned behavior and possibly some amount of survival instinct.
#133
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Either moral realism or moral non-realism is true by law of excluded middle.
What you are saying is,"moral realism" is either true or false.  Please provide a logically coherent definition of "moral realism".

Do you believe in "love realism" and "beauty realism" as well?  What about "unicorn realism" and "big foot realism"?

Have you met Plato?

Either unicorn realism or unicorn non-realism is true by the law of excluded middle.

How do we know which one is true????????????

"Consensus morality" does not address whether moral statements are true based on fact or opinion. You can have consensus on facts and that's why there's often consensus in the first place. 
Sure, but without an explicit, empirically verifiable standard, how do you know if we are more moral than our ancestors?

How do we know if we are more moral than our friends in Papua New Guinea?

Your personal overwhelming confidence in your own moral intuition is meaningless.

If "everyone followed the rules" we'd still be writing in ancient Latin.  Languages evolve over time, just like morality.  Proper grammar today is not the same as proper grammar a thousand years ago.  It is based on consensus.
#134
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@TwoMan
"Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things. Bloom answered questions recently from Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook. "



#135
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@TwoMan
Correct, in order for a moral statement to be factually true there must be an existing moral standard. The caveat is that our awareness of that standard isn't required in order to decipher moral from immoral behavior. That comes naturally and intuitively on some things.
#136
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
"Morality is not just something that people learn..."
No kidding, we have basic intuitions about our immediate family, just like dogs.

If morality was as simple as "be nice" then we would never have any disagreements.

HOwever, it is obviously more complicated than that.

The differences in moral (social/cultural) norms across time and geography are examples of learned behavior.

#137
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
The caveat is that our awareness of that standard isn't required...
A secret or unknown standard is functionally identical to no standard at all.
#138
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
A proposition is either true or not true. "Unicorns exist" is either true or not true. 

Moral realism is the view that some moral statements (like "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong") are factually true.

We can determine the morality of behaviors rationally. We don't need to reference a tangible, empirical object.

Intuition provides us with prima facie evidence. Raping infants seems truly evil, so unless and until you have evidence to show that our intuition is providing us with false information, we should accept the way it seems. 
#139
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
We needn't know why something seems wrong before it seems wrong
#140
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Correct, in order for a moral statement to be factually true there must be an existing moral standard. The caveat is that our awareness of that standard isn't required in order to decipher moral from immoral behavior. That comes naturally and intuitively on some things.
I would say very few things. While I'm not a psychologist, there are certainly lots of examples that, in part, refute Paul Bloom's theory. It sounds like he has forgotten what it's like to be a child. He seems to be saying that children "know" what is right but behave wrong anyway. Bullying is a very real and pervasive problem. Children steal other children's toys. I could go on and on. Compassion, empathy and a sense of fairness aren't worth much unless we are taught to value them.
#141
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
We needn't know why something seems wrong before it seems wrong
Nobody ever suggested such a thing.

What we need to know are the coherent logical principles we can base our laws (codified morality) on.

Should a copyright expire after 59 years, as originally intended, or can it be renewed indefinitely(?).

Your moral intuition on such matters may be somewhat different than mine.

We agree on many things, that is not in dispute, but that alone merely proves consensus, it is the points that we disagree on that must be explicitly principled.
#142
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
All you'd need is one moral statement that is factually true in order to affirm moral realism.

Is the principle "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" rationally equivalent to the principle that "punishing innocent people is morally good"?
#143
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Consensus morality has no effect on whether moral statements are factually true or true only by opinion. If the consensus is aggregate and universal, this is actually a strong indicator of moral facts.
#144
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I can't think of any moral statement that is universal, meaning true for every human being.
#145
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
A proposition is either true or not true. "Unicorns exist" is either true or not true. 
Ok, but without seeing a unicorn (objective morality), can we say they definitely DON'T exist? 

If there is no detectable standard, it doesn't seem to be conclusive.

Without a verifiable, empirical standard, you can't say a unicorn (objective morality) definitely DOES exist.

Moral realism is the view that some moral statements (like "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong") are factually true.
"Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is only axiomatically true.  Many people believe (with their moral intuition) it is better to "err on the side of caution" and would rather lock-up all people who appear to be dangerous, regardless of their guilt or innocence (internment camps are just one of many examples).

We can determine the morality of behaviors rationally. We don't need to reference a tangible, empirical object.
You keep appealing to "moral intuition" and then turn right around and say "morality is rational".  Which is it?

Intuition provides us with prima facie evidence. Raping infants seems truly evil, so unless and until you have evidence to show that our intuition is providing us with false information, we should accept the way it seems. 
Atrocious atrocities are atrocious.  We all agree.

This merely proves consensus.  Nobody is asking for evidence of consensus. 

We are asking for logically coherent principles that allow us to clearly adjudicate scenarios that are outside of our consensus.
#146
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Consensus morality has no effect on whether moral statements are factually true or true only by opinion.
Wait, consensus has nothing to do with facts?

If the consensus is aggregate and universal, this is actually a strong indicator of moral facts.
Now, suddenly, consensus is a strong indicator of facts?

Since when?
#147
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
All you'd need is one moral statement that is factually true in order to affirm moral realism.
False.

You have merely confirmed consensus.

Affirming an intuition, like, "castor oil tastes bad to everybody", is perfectly pointless.

In order for your "objective morality" to be of any practical use whatsoever, it must be able to adjudicate divergent moral intuitions.
#148
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
A unicorn is defined according to its physical characteristics. Morality is not defined by physical characteristics. Morality is abstract. Empiricism works on tangible things, like unicorns, but not on abstract stuff, like morality.

We don't need to prove moral realism. All we need to do is determine whether it's more rational than moral non-realism since one of the two must be true by law of excluded middle.

Having a moral principle be "axiomatically true" better evidences moral realism than non-realism. 

Moral realism is both intuitive and rational. They needn't be mutually exclusive. 

We would expect greater consensus on facts than on mere opinions. Rationality is not wholly subjective. Therefore, rationality is our independent epistemic standard. 

No, consensus has no effect on facts. If we all agree it's cold, it doesn't change that the temperature is 70. If we all agree it's hot, it doesn't change that temperature is still 70. Our natural reaction to 70 degree weather, however, will not consist of sweating or shivering. Our behavior indicates, but has no hand in determining, the actual temperature. 

All I need to do is point out that there are rational differences between opposite moral conclusions. You aren't irrational for preferring the taste of chocolate ice cream over vanilla or vice versa. You are irrational, however, if you believe that cruelty must be morally good and that compassion must be morally wrong. This shows that morality is embedded in rationality and rationality is not wholly subjective. Since rationality is not wholly subjective, therein lies our independent basis for arriving at the conclusion of the existence of moral facts.


#149
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
@David
@Logical-Master
Shamelessly plagiarized [with modifications] from Logical-Master

-Both debaters have stipulated that objective moral facts exist.

PRO R1: (1) Objective moral facts transcend time, culture, place religious traditions, etc; these facts are always true regardless of the state of the universe [bald assertion, no examples, yet uncontested by CON]. (2) Objective moral facts are commands and commands [bald assertion, facts are not commands] must originate from an intelligent and competent mind [bald assertion, gravity is not a command and does not require a commander]. (3) Free will exist and objective moral facts cannot be accounted for without it [bald assertion, gravity does not require free will, why would any other objective fact require free will]. (4)Therefore, God must exist [non-sequitur, does not follow from premises].

CON R1: PRO is wrong because morality can be objective without necessitating the conclusion that God exist [just like gravity]. (1) Morality can be reduced to principles concerning the distinction between beneficial and detrimental actions with respect to humans and some extent to animals’ homeostasis (an organism’s maintenance of internal balance when dealing with external changes)[I believe this is just one possible example to show viability of concept]. (2) Morality is objective as long as its determination is independent of human opinion[applies to other animals or systems]. (3) Morality is determined based on facts about the homeostasis of others towards whom they are acting[subjective]. 4) Therefore, morality does not come from God, but rather homeostasis[reckless overstatement]
#150
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
@David
@Logical-Master
PRO R2: CON’s conclusion is fault since (1)It is full of moral paradoxes such whether it is wrong to rape a comatose person, whether driving is immoral as well making determinations such as whose homeostasis is more important[raising the bar fallacy, adding a hypothetical god does not automagically solve either of these problems, therefore PRO has no counter-argument]; (2)Con’s framework applies to all life and thus applies to animals and vegetables as well[as would be required for it to qualify as objective, this is a confirmation and not an objection].

CON R2: (1) In regards to PRO’s case, objective moral facts are based on our assessments of the homeostasis of those towards who we behave and there was no creator of the universe that was not created[that we know of, overstatement]. (2) Moral-facts transcend everything but space-time and are contingent on physical facts[phenomenal reality, like gravity]. (3) Morality is not a command, but rather an organism need[not a command]. (4) None of PRO’s paradoxes apply to morality via homeostasis. A comatose patient being raped would still be experiencing physical trauma, thus would still be an immoral act[seems obvious]. Driving is not immoral because of the homeostasis it helps to maintain and because it is not a behavior [directly] towards others. Jack is not being harmed in PRO’s third paradox[obvious]. (3) Homeostasis does not stop with humans and other animals[objective]. (4) To conclude, the universe wasn’t created, so there is not creator of the universe[bald assertion, overstatement]. And objective moral facts exist by considering homeostasis, not the NAP. And all actions PRO would consider to be moral can be reduced to the homestatis principle[overstatement, appeal to ignorance].

PRO R3: (1) CON’s arguments against God are a Kritik and should thus be ignored[false, the debate resolution does not presume god, it is a question, "can morality be objective without god", if god is presupposed, the question has a foregone conclusion and would be considered rhetorical]. (2) Objective moral facts are indeed infinite because even if the physical universe were to disappear, these facts would still be true no different than 2 + 2 = 4[mathematics is an axiomatic system created by humans and does not transcend human existence]. (3) Objective Moral Facts are commands since “do not kill” and “do not torture babies for fun”[which god said this??] certain directs authoritatively and thus must come from an intelligent mind[bald assertion, fabricated, ad-hoc definition]. Homeostasis cannot make such commands[why would it need to?]. Evolution and homeostasis are only concerned with the survival of the fittest whereas morality is concerned with the community[morality has feelings? this is absurd]. (4) CON drops the free will argument[this is false, PRO cannot speak for CON]. (5) All of PRO’s paradoxes apply to morality via homestasis[bald assertion, provably false]. By CON’s logic, any form of sexual intercourse involves physical trauma and thus all sexual intercourse would be immoral by CON’s logic[obvious strawman]; there is no physical harm in the comatose rape victim example[also false], therefore no physical trauma[false]. By CON’s logic, driving and pollution are immoral since driving cars and pollution hurt the environment[CON already pointed out, not directed harm]. (6) PRO drops his own “who’s harm” subpoint.

CON R3: (1) Free will exist, but the existence of free will is irrelevant to the debate since one can independently conclude the existence of free will without concluding that God exist[poorly phrased true statement]. (2) Challenging God’s existence is not a kritik since CON is merely challenging the God defined in this debate[true, weak argument]. (3) Objective moral facts are not infinite since nothing about the term objective, being independent of human opinion, elicits the concept of infinity[utterly incidental to resolution]. (4) Objective moral facts are not commands since homeostasis is a standard as opposed to being an authority[all facts are facts and not commands, poorly phrased]; it exist in opposition to suffering and maltreatment[opposition seems to suppose motive and identity, poorly phrased]. This standard would involve the refusal to kill or torture babies[might include perhaps, but animals eat their young, so maybe not the best example here]. And from an evolutionary standpoint, social mammals with a functioning, homestatis society helped evolve the human species to better hunt, more quickly construct shelter and increase the overall security of the self and the society[ok, seems a bit off-topic]. (5) PRO’s paradoxes are unpersuasive[obviously, but the real problem is that god does not automagically solve them]. In regards to raping a comatose person, the enjoyment from sex outweights the minor sexual trauma received whereas no such enjoyment exist in PRO’s comatose rape victim example[seems a bit ad-hoc, poor example]. In regards to the pollution from cars, the danger from carbon emissions is in no way more immediately detrimental to homeostasis than being unable to rush a person to the hospital in a gassed up ambulance or removing the gas powered generators from homes in freezing temperatures[also poor examples, PRO is actually making a "greater good" homeostasis argument when citing air pollution, the real question would be, "how does god solve air pollution?"]. (6) CON then asks Pro if he can name a moral action that is not reducible to the homeostasis of those towards whom the action is being done [appeal to ignorance, weak argument] as well as why [a] God would be needed to determine someone’s homeostasis[great question]?