Atheism, Slavery, And The Moral High Ground...

[Machinist]

"An idealized concept is not reality, it is merely a non-epistemic speculation. " - Tassman

What Seer has been arguing now for quite some time, that is, the Moral argument for the existence of God, is a variation of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. It is strictly limited to the domain of logic. However, it is through this same logic that we all rely on when interacting with the world around us. To me, it is quite significant that it works out logically... that there is no absolute morality without an absolute moral standard. In one sense, it's not really worldly practical. But then in another, it's more like an imprint of some Other...some transcendent creator that left an image of itself on it's creation.

At least this is my understanding. If Seer would weigh in here and critique the above, I would greatly appreciate it.

[Tassman]

Regarding the whole "you can't claim something is absolutely moral unless you compare it to an absolute moral law" thing:

There is no absolute morality. Morality only exists as rules of behavior relative to the needs of the community at a given time in history.

And I believe that is the significance of the moral argument. You will never see it in action. Asking for examples misses the point. The point only exists conceptually, within the rules of logic that we all assume when we communicate. It is not fictional.

An idealized concept is not reality, it is merely a non-epistemic speculation.

[Stoic]

This is my point. Say the man understands that A is wrong, yet he still does A - wasn't that act still determined?

Sure.

His understanding did not prevent him from doing A, and that determined act is no more deserving of blame than the tree is to blame for falling on the fox.

If he understands that A is wrong, yet still does A, it makes sense to blame him. If the blame doesn't keep him from doing A in the future, it might still keep someone else from doing A.

Of course, if no good could come in the future from blaming the man, then blaming him would make no sense.

[seer]

And if the tree and fox were members of a society that had certain rules of behavior, and certain punishments expected to be applied to those who failed to follow the rules, and the fox understood those rules and the potential consequences for not following them, and the tree fell on the fox because it failed to follow the rules, then you would have moral agency.

This is my point. Say the man understands that A is wrong, yet he still does A - wasn't that act still determined? His understanding did not prevent him from doing A, and that determined act is no more deserving of blame than the tree is to blame for falling on the fox.

Again, you apparently have a concept of moral agency that is different from mine. I would guess that moral agency, by your concept, does not exist without LFW.

That, of course, does not change my opinion that moral agency, by my concept, does exist whether or not there is LFW.

Correct I do not see determined acts as worthy of praise or blame. Like the man above...

[Stoic]

Like a tree falling on the back legs of a fox will determine her future actions. And?

And if the tree and fox were members of a society that had certain rules of behavior, and certain punishments expected to be applied to those who failed to follow the rules, and the fox understood those rules and the potential consequences for not following them, and the tree fell on the fox because it failed to follow the rules, then you would have moral agency.

You have never explained how logical reasoning, which is not a physical property, can effect the physical deterministic process.

Pretty much the same way that logic in a computer, which is deterministic, can affect its outputs.

Because it is all out of our control.

And yet we either do or do not have understanding.

Right and we are just as determined - no moral agency anywhere.

Again, you apparently have a concept of moral agency that is different from mine. I would guess that moral agency, by your concept, does not exist without LFW.

That, of course, does not change my opinion that moral agency, by my concept, does exist whether or not there is LFW.

Until then I can agree with Harris that emergence as it applies to human consciousness is magical thinking.

No problem.

[seer]

Over and over again, you imply that what I do can have no affect on your actions if your actions are determined, completely ignoring the possibility that what I do may be part of what determines your actions.

Like a tree falling on the back legs of a fox will determine her future actions. And?

Along the same lines, there can be logical reasons for doing something, even if what you do is determined, given that what you do may be (at least partly) determined by those logical reasons.

You have never explained how logical reasoning, which is not a physical property, can effect the physical deterministic process.

Yeah, so?

Because it is all out of our control.

If Jupiter can affect Saturn's orbit, does that mean that Saturn's orbit is not determined?

Right and we are just as determined - no moral agency anywhere.

Personally, I think consciousness is what happens when faculties that were originally directed outward, to help us deal with the external world, are then focused inward. I'll grant it is a hard problem, but I don't think it's unsolvable.

And I think it's too early to conclude that consciousness is not a physical property.

Until then I can agree with Harris that emergence as it applies to human consciousness is magical thinking.

[Stoic]

Yet as I said that does not make us moral agents any more than when an alpha wolf effects the future actions of other group members. But what you seem to be saying is that we can change determined acts - which means that they were not really determined in the first place. If it is turtles all the way down then really you are dealing with a vast and complex domino effect. but no real agency. The cue ball hits another ball, which moves another ball, then another, etc...Nothing moral in that picture.

Over and over again, you imply that what I do can have no affect on your actions if your actions are determined, completely ignoring the possibility that what I do may be part of what determines your actions.

Along the same lines, there can be logical reasons for doing something, even if what you do is determined, given that what you do may be (at least partly) determined by those logical reasons.

Isn't your understanding or lack of also determined?

Yeah, so?

So we can change determined acts? Then how are they determined?

If Jupiter can affect Saturn's orbit, does that mean that Saturn's orbit is not determined?

That is why I brought up human consciousness awhile back - that is the seat of our rationality. And that can not be shown to be an emergent property, and there is good reason to think it is not. See the Harris' link, or Chalmers' Hard problem of consciousness. And BTW - is consciousness a physical property?

Personally, I think consciousness is what happens when faculties that were originally directed outward, to help us deal with the external world, are then focused inward. I'll grant it is a hard problem, but I don't think it's unsolvable.

And I think it's too early to conclude that consciousness is not a physical property.

[seer]

To quote myself, praise and blame "can be rationally justified if you look at them as an attempt to influence future actions."

In the case of a moral agent, part of what determines an act is knowledge about whether one might be held accountable for that act. So it's important to hold people responsible for determined acts in order to help determine those acts.

That you refuse to recognize this, much less deal with it, is one of the reasons I suspect we're not going to make any further progress discussing this subject.

Yet as I said that does not make us moral agents any more than when an alpha wolf effects the future actions of other group members. But what you seem to be saying is that we can change determined acts - which means that they were not really determined in the first place. If it is turtles all the way down then really you are dealing with a vast and complex domino effect. but no real agency. The cue ball hits another ball, which moves another ball, then another, etc...Nothing moral in that picture.

Understanding makes all the difference, because if one does not understand that one will be held accountable, then it makes no sense to hold one accountable, because it will have no influence on determining the act.

Isn't your understanding or lack of also determined?

This is why it would make no sense to blame a lion for what it does. The prospect of blame has no impact on the lion's actions.

So we can change determined acts? Then how are they determined?

"Emergent properties" refer to those properties that are entirely unexpected and include emergent phenomena in materials and emergent behavior in living creatures. They arise from the collaborative functioning of a system, but do not belong to any one part of that system. In other words, emergent properties are properties of a group of items, whether insects, atoms or buildings, that you would not find in any of the individual items.[/BOX]

It's not unusual for a group of items to have properties that none of the individual items have. So the fact that a group of fundamental particles and forces has properties that those particles and forces do not have, is not all that strange, even if it is unpredictable.


Consciousness is a different subject, and a huge one. Suffice it to say that I think it will eventually be explained in terms of physical processes, though we have certainly not done that yet, and I'll grant that I could be wrong.

That is why I brought up human consciousness awhile back - that is the seat of our rationality. And that can not be shown to be an emergent property, and there is good reason to think it is not. See the Harris' link, or Chalmers' Hard problem of consciousness. And BTW - is consciousness a physical property?

Harris:

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

[Machinist]

Morality is relative to the needs of the community and has demonstrably evolved and varied from culture to culture over time – including Christian cultures. If you want to argue that morality is fixed and absolute and embodied within a deity and revealed in scripture you need to show WHEN in history, if ever, we have seen it in action. Or is it an idealized fictional concept not sustained by reality? I argue that it is the latter.

Regarding the whole "you can't claim something is absolutely moral unless you compare it to an absolute moral law" thing:

I believe it can only be demonstrated syllogistically.

And I believe that is the significance of the moral argument. You will never see it in action. Asking for examples misses the point. The point only exists conceptually, within the rules of logic that we all assume when we communicate. It is not fictional.

[Tassman]

Right. I think that was the whole point of the thread. That is, if read it correctly. It's all relative.

Morality is relative to the needs of the community and has demonstrably evolved and varied from culture to culture over time – including Christian cultures. If you want to argue that morality is fixed and absolute and embodied within a deity and revealed in scripture you need to show WHEN in history, if ever, we have seen it in action. Or is it an idealized fictional concept not sustained by reality? I argue that it is the latter.

[Stoic]

How do you logically blame a determined act?

To quote myself, praise and blame "can be rationally justified if you look at them as an attempt to influence future actions."

In the case of a moral agent, part of what determines an act is knowledge about whether one might be held accountable for that act. So it's important to hold people responsible for determined acts in order to help determine those acts.

That you refuse to recognize this, much less deal with it, is one of the reasons I suspect we're not going to make any further progress discussing this subject.

Understanding makes no difference if the act is determined. How could it, there is no freedom to do otherwise in this picture.

Understanding makes all the difference, because if one does not understand that one will be held accountable, then it makes no sense to hold one accountable, because it will have no influence on determining the act.

This is why it would make no sense to blame a lion for what it does. The prospect of blame has no impact on the lion's actions.

Right they don't.

And from the link I gave you,

"Emergent properties" refer to those properties that are entirely unexpected and include emergent phenomena in materials and emergent behavior in living creatures. They arise from the collaborative functioning of a system, but do not belong to any one part of that system. In other words, emergent properties are properties of a group of items, whether insects, atoms or buildings, that you would not find in any of the individual items.

It's not unusual for a group of items to have properties that none of the individual items have. So the fact that a group of fundamental particles and forces has properties that those particles and forces do not have, is not all that strange, even if it is unpredictable.

Yes I know the argument, your link references human consciousness - is that a physical property or a non-physical property? And this whole emergent argument begs the question a bit; all there is, is nature, therefore nature must have did this. Here is an interesting piece by Sam Harris you might like: https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/

Consciousness is a different subject, and a huge one. Suffice it to say that I think it will eventually be explained in terms of physical processes, though we have certainly not done that yet, and I'll grant that I could be wrong.

[seer]

Right. I think that was the whole point of the thread. That is, if read it correctly. It's all relative.

Apart from the law of God that would be the case. Which also means that no moral relativist has any rational standing to counter to any behavior they find objectionable.

[seer]

I didn't say that there is no rational basis for blame or praise, just that one isn't necessary.

How do you logically blame a determined act?

It means that one understands right and wrong, and that it makes sense to hold him accountable for his actions.

Understanding makes no difference if the act is determined. How could it, there is no freedom to do otherwise in this picture.

I don't see a reason to conclude that the individual forces of nature seek or aim at truth.

Right they don't.

Think of it as an emergent property.

Yes I know the argument, your link references human consciousness - is that a physical property or a non-physical property? And this whole emergent argument begs the question a bit; all there is, is nature, therefore nature must have did this. Here is an interesting piece by Sam Harris you might like: https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/

[Machinist]

It is not fixed; it evolves and varies to a degree from culture to culture over time.

Right. I think that was the whole point of the thread. That is, if read it correctly. It's all relative.

[Tassman]

If there is no rational basis for blame or praise then what does it mean to be a moral agent?

“Blame or praise” with regard to community behavior is bestowed by the society that sets the rules. And a well socialized person will follow societal expectations.

Then you would have to conclude that the forces of nature do in fact seek or aim at truth. But that is exactly what they don't do.

There is NO moral “truth” outside of communal values. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection, NOT "revealed" absolute morality embedded in a deity.

How does that work since they neither care about or aim for truth. They are deaf dumb and blind to truisms. If the forces of nature that determined you have no affinity for truth or truth seeking then where does it come from?

It works because the abiding instinct of ALL life-forms is survival. In our instance morality is a product of evolution as it lends itself to our survival as a social species. It is not fixed; it evolves and varies to a degree from culture to culture over time.