"Ought" Statements Presuppose a Spiritual Realm

Geoff wrote:

Aye, it seemed that every paragraph contained incomplete edits. But it makes some good points.

In a purely materialistic world, everything we do is determined by our chemical composition. There is no "ought" and "ought not" in a purely material world; there is only "can" and "can not." I guess in truth, there is only "X will inevitably happen due to the laws of physics" and "X will not inevitably happen due to the laws of physics."

Without an immaterial individuating principle, there is no foundation for the notion of "free will." If there is no free will, then all human law, all prisons, all courts, are a complete charade. (That's not to say that they aren't in fact a charade in Realityville, where we live, but that's for a different reason.)

In a purely material world, we are merely clumps of matter that happen to manipulate other clumps of matter, and morality has no place in such a world. But strict materialists still *act* as though there is some sort of objective moral law. The cheek! I mean, if you punch a materialist in the face, he still *objects* to it, even though his getting punched in the face was simply predestined by your chemical composition. It's really as rational as complaining about being struck by a meteorite. The laws of physics simply made it inevitable for you to be hit.

(Pro Tip: When a materialist objects to getting his face punched, be sure to put on a shocked, indignant face and say, "Don't *judge* me!")

-Geoff

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 1:05 PM,
>
>> A thought provoking essay in pjmedia.com by Richard Fernandez. We are
>> probably fucked. This piece needs some serious editing but is worth
>> your
>> time.
>>
>> https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/03/27/terminal-depression/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>