To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[seer]

Wow - you really ARE a binary thinker. That there is some degree of disorder in the moral world is not the equivalent of chaos. Again - "chaos" on one end of the spectrum, and "completely ordered" on the other. Between, a wide array of semi-ordered systems. The subjective moral framework describes how this works, and how order arises from the individual moral codes because we share a common universe, a common humanity, and a common reasoning capability. The high degree of correlation in moral codes serves as a unifier, and our tendency to gather in groups that share common moral frameworks magnifies this effect.

So the result is not "perfectly" ordered - but it has order to it. And the order cannot really be claimeed to be more or less ordered than what is found in your moral framework, as people try to take the concepts conveyed in the "divinely inspired" moral code and interpret it. There are churchs/people advocating for gay rights, and churches/people opposing it. There are churches/people advocating for birth control, and churches/people opposing it. There are churches/people advocating for capital punishment, and churches/people opposing it. As far as I can tell, there is as much "moral chaos" in the "universal moral code" world as there is in the "subjective moral code" world.

And my moral framework predicts this - we see exactly the same dynamic amongst those who claim a universal/absolute basis as we see among those who do not. Why? Well, from my worldview, the reason is that there actually IS no universal/absolute framework. Unless I miss my bet, from the position of your worldview, it is due to the "sinful nature" of humanity that cannot completely grasp the absolute/universal framework.

That is a debate that has no resolution - because our worldviews are so widely separated (with respect to the existence of a god).

Sheesh you write a lot! And yes I am a binary thinker, 2+2 always equals 4 and gassing Jewish children is always wrong.

[seer]

As I have noted multiple times, "what might be" or "what might have been" arguments are largely pointless - they are pure speculation and not worth the time. It is a fact that I would have been a free-but-influenced moral agent at that time, or any other time. Timing and place of birth influenced my moral sense, Seer, it didn't dictate it (unless you want to try to make the case that my moral sense is "necessary" due to my time and place of birth?

Carpedm I just gave an example that we both know is likely true where really the thing that largely influences your view is the timing and place of your birth. That you would have had a different view if born in the past, or in another country, like Iran today. And it is worth the time, it highlights just how ethically bankrupt moral relativism is.

Your suspicions is noted - but given that my beliefs span the political spectrum, you're going to have a hard time defending that claim...

So you support robust gun rights? You are against abortion, gay marriage? What exactly do we agree on politically?

[carpedm9587]

Sheesh you write a lot! And yes I am a binary thinker, 2+2 always equals 4 and gassing Jewish children is always wrong.

Yes, I do. Occupational hazard!

Did you know that 2 + 2 = 11 is a true statement? You see, your statement is only true in a base system at or above 4. In base 3, 2 + 2 = 11. In base 2, 2 + 2 is a meaningless statement. Without knowing the measuring system, you cannot evaluate the truth of the statement.

Likewise, without knowing the moral framework, you cannot evaluate the truth of the statement. "Gassing Jewish Children is immoral" is a true statement in your moral framework. It is is a true statement in my moral framework. It is is a true statement in the framework of most religions, most communities, and most people. It was not true (presumably) in Hitler's moral framework. It was not true (presumably) in Himmler's moral framework. Most neo-Nazi's would evaluate it as "not true."

Tell me which moral framework we're working from, and I will tell you whether or not the statement "X is immoral" is true or not.

[seer]

Yes, I do. Occupational hazard!

Did you know that 2 + 2 = 11 is a true statement? You see, your statement is only true in a base system at or above 4. In base 3, 2 + 2 = 11. In base 2, 2 + 2 is a meaningless statement. Without knowing the measuring system, you cannot evaluate the truth of the statement.

Likewise, without knowing the moral framework, you cannot evaluate the truth of the statement. "Gassing Jewish Children is immoral" in your moral framework. It is immoral in my moral framework. It is immoral in the framework of most religions, most communities, most people. It was not immoral (presumably) in Hitler's moral framework. It was not immoral (presumably) in Himmler's moral framework. Most neo-Nazi's would evaluate it as "not immoral."

Tell me which moral framework we're working from, and I will tell you whether or not the statement "X is immoral" is true or not.

Weren't you telling me that your a priori truth about existence was akin to 12=12? I guess we can all play with numbers when it suits us.

[carpedm9587]

Carpedm I just gave an example that we both know is likely true where really the thing that largely influences your view is the timing and place of your birth. That you would have had a different view if born in the past, or in another country, like Iran today. And it is worth the time, it highlights just how ethically bankrupt moral relativism is.

That I would have LIKELY had a different view if born in the past or Iran is a valid statement. That I WOULD have is not. There are people in Iran today defending gay rights. There were people 100 years ago defending gay rights. You cannot show that I would not have been one of them - so it's simply pure speculation. We are free moral agents. It is likely that our moral code will be highly influenced by our upbringing, culture, and experience. It is not determined. I hold moral positions my parents do not share. I hold moral positions my community and friends do not share. I hold moral positions my country does not share.

So you support robust gun rights? You are against abortion, gay marriage? What exactly do we agree on politically?

I support reasonable gun controls, and broad gun rights. I am against abortion with few exceptions. I support same-sex marriage. I have no idea what we agree on politically. I am for a balanced budget, against spending increases or tax cuts until that budget is balanced, for an overhaul of the regulatory infrastructure to emphasize oversight, in support of a single payer healthcare system, for government actions to counter climate change, in favor of a flat tax system and severe reduction in the scope and power of the IRS, for a well-structured welfare system, for a well-structure education system, for government coordinated infrastructure, against government curtailment of personal rights. Not sure how much that does or does not align with your political stance.

[carpedm9587]

Weren't you telling me that your a priori truth about existence was akin to 12=12? I guess we can all play with numbers when it suits us.

When we write, we tend to use shortcuts, Seer; to that I plead guilty. The statement above assumes the entire system is in the same numerical base, because that is our convention when we write mathematical equations, so it never crossed my mind that I needed the full formal language, "12 = 12 in any numerical base system at or above base 3 if the statement is in a consistent mathematical base on both sides." I already stand accused of writing too much - do you REALLY want to encourage me to be that precise?

Note that I also used the more generic version several times: "the law of identity," but again that also assumes we agree on the meaning of each word in that sentence. Should I likewise write out their definition? But then we would have to agree on the meaning of each word in those definitions...so we would write out each of those...which creates an infinite recursion.

I do make assumptions about our general agreement concerning the English language, until I have cause to believe we are using (or in danger of using) a particular word differently (e.g., "preferences").

[seer]

That I would have LIKELY had a different view if born in the past or Iran is a valid statement. That I WOULD have is not. There are people in Iran today defending gay rights. There were people 100 years ago defending gay rights. You cannot show that I would not have been one of them - so it's simply pure speculation. We are free moral agents. It is likely that our moral code will be highly influenced by our upbringing, culture, and experience. It is not determined. I hold moral positions my parents do not share. I hold moral positions my community and friends do not share. I hold moral positions my country does not share.

Well given that you now hold to the popular opinion I suspect that you would have back in the day or if you lived in Iran.

I support reasonable gun controls, and broad gun rights. I am against abortion with few exceptions. I support same-sex marriage. I have no idea what we agree on politically. I am for a balanced budget, against spending increases or tax cuts until that budget is balanced, for an overhaul of the regulatory infrastructure to emphasize oversight, in support of a single payer healthcare system, for government actions to counter climate change, in favor of a flat tax system and severe reduction in the scope and power of the IRS, for a well-structured welfare system, for a well-structure education system, for government coordinated infrastructure, against government curtailment of personal rights. Not sure how much that does or does not align with your political stance.

OK, we agree on a few minor issue monetary issues.

[seer]

When we write, we tend to use shortcuts, Seer; to that I plead guilty. The statement above assumes the entire system is in the same numerical base, because that is our convention when we write mathematical equations, so it never crossed my mind that I needed the full formal language, "12 = 12 in any numerical base system at or above base 3 if the statement is in a consistent mathematical base on both sides." I already stand accused of writing too much - do you REALLY want to encourage me to be that precise?

Note that I also used the more generic version several times: "the law of identity," but again that also assumes we agree on the meaning of each word in that sentence. Should I likewise write out their definition? But then we would have to agree on the meaning of each word in those definitions...so we would write out each of those...which creates an infinite recursion.

I do make assumptions about our general agreement concerning the English language, until I have cause to believe we are using (or in danger of using) a particular word differently (e.g., "preferences").

Oh please, then gassing Jewish children is always wrong as 12 always equals 12. But that was not the point, your double standard is.

[carpedm9587]

Oh please, then gassing Jewish children is always wrong as 12 always equals 12. But that was not the point, your double standard is.

Easy, Seer. We've been pretty civil up until now. Let's not undo that.

The parallel was between the a priori truth that is the foundation for my moral code (the goodness of existence), and the law of identity (12=12). You have shifted the context and substituted the morality of gassing Jewish children.

And I do not have a double standard - I have an internally consistent standard that does not happen to correlate with yours because our worldviews come from a different place. I have acknowledged that I see your standard as "subjective but you think it is objective" just as you see my standard as "based in an objective standard because I have a god-given conscience which I deny" (in so many words).

This discussion seems to be angering you. I'm not sure why, or even if that is true. If it is, then perhaps it is better if we suspend the discussion. I'm not looking to have an "argument" in the emotional sense - just a discussion/debate/argument in the "let's explore our positions" sense.

[carpedm9587]

Well given that you now hold to the popular opinion I suspect that you would have back in the day or if you lived in Iran.

You are free to suspect as much as you wish. If you base an argument on the idea that I necessarily would have, your argument will fail to convince because you are making an unsubstantiated assumption.

And I currently hold the "popular opinion" on homosexuality. I do not on abortion. I do not on several issues. What is "popular" has little or no factor in my reasoning process, except that I have to acknowledge we are all influenced by the positions espoused by the communities of which we are members. You are strongly affliated (I think?) with your Christian church. Within that context, most of your beliefs are the "popular" position. While you may be influenced by that, I would not assume that you hold those positions simply because they are popular in your community, so I am not sure why you would think I hold mine for that reason. Hopefully, I am not that shallow a human being.

Seer, we are not enemies. I am not ridiculing you or disparaging your beliefs. I am assuming that you are a good person, with good intent, and a different way of getting there than I have. I do not agree with your approach, or some of your conclusion, just as you do not agree with mine. Such is life. Is it not possible for both of us to approach the discussion on those terms?

OK, we agree on a few minor issue monetary issues.

Well - at least there is that...

But I have to admit that I am somewhat surprised that we do not have common ground on abortion, or national infrastructure. I am also for a strong military, which I suspect is a commonality in our views.

[seer]

Easy, Seer. We've been pretty civil up until now. Let's not undo that.

The parallel was between the a priori truth that is the foundation for my moral code (the goodness of existence), and the law of identity (12=12). You have shifted the context and substituted the morality of gassing Jewish children.

And I do not have a double standard - I have an internally consistent standard that does not happen to correlate with yours because our worldviews come from a different place. I have acknowledged that I see your standard as "subjective but you think it is objective" just as you see my standard as "based in an objective standard because I have a god-given conscience which I deny" (in so many words).

This discussion seems to be angering you. I'm not sure why, or even if that is true. If it is, then perhaps it is better if we suspend the discussion. I'm not looking to have an "argument" in the emotional sense - just a discussion/debate/argument in the "let's explore our positions" sense.

Carpedm why on earth would you think me angry? You should see me debating Shuny - that is angry...

[seer]

Seer, we are not enemies. I am not ridiculing you or disparaging your beliefs. I am assuming that you are a good person, with good intent, and a different way of getting there than I have. I do not agree with your approach, or some of your conclusion, just as you do not agree with mine. Such is life. Is it not possible for both of us to approach the discussion on those terms?

A good person according to whose norms?

[demi-conservative]

Looks very much like they can't, so no grounding. So yes, preference or popularity for them!

And because no grounding, we get '''''morality'''''' of no conviction. So surprise, we get wannabe moderate like carpedm.

[carpedm9587]

Carpedm why on earth would you think me angry? You should see me debating Shuny - that is angry...

I made the assumption due to the change in your tone: "double standard," "oh please" - etc.

If that was in error - my apologies for misunderstanding your tone. Text does not lend itself well to conveying emotional content.

[carpedm9587]

A good person according to whose norms?

Mine, of course

Just as I KNOW you see me as a good person, from the perspective of YOUR norms...