Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostFirst of all you are still not providing any line of reasoning, but only a bunch of claims. In a philosophical aproach this is not enough. It is not even close. You are not answering any questions at all. It just pure claims and dogmatism.Secondly I have already pointed out that the part about objective standards will be touched upon in another thread because that makes sense in the aproach that I have. You are not going to decide in this thread.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jin-roh View PostI'm glad you learned to google, Seer.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
All I have done so far is to claim that we all need to find or identify objective values no matter if we are religious or not. I have pointed to quite many reasons as to why that is the fact. You claim that we can somehow bypass this challenge. But apart from hearing you say you don't believe we will be able to find objective values, I am yet to see how your God is the solution to the problem of the founding of ethics. Even if I wont find any objective vaules, it would not prove you right, you'd be in the same boat. If you do not think so, then please give us arguments instead of claims.
Comment
-
Okay so reading Leibneiz, his argument is not just about God's will, but also the potential arbitrariness of God's will. Meaning, why praise God for doing what is 'good' because he could have done anything else and it would be 'good.'
I finally dug up Descartes Meditations. In meditation three he goes over God. After wondering how he can think about God at all, and arguing that God can't be simple extension of his own hoped for perfection, or from his parents, or from his senses... and finally concluding that God exists. He writes:
God cannot deceive, according to Descartes. It seems then, that God could not call deception 'good.'
So while Descartes might've believed that goodness depended on God's will, I don't think he meant the kind of arbitrariness that was implied. There are things that God, in principle, cannot will or declare 'good'.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jin-roh View PostOkay so reading Leibneiz, his argument is not just about God's will, but also the potential arbitrariness of God's will. Meaning, why praise God for doing what is 'good' because he could have done anything else and it would be 'good.'
I finally dug up Descartes Meditations. In meditation three he goes over God. After wondering how he can think about God at all, and arguing that God can't be simple extension of his own hoped for perfection, or from his parents, or from his senses... and finally concluding that God exists. He writes:
God cannot deceive, according to Descartes. It seems then, that God could not call deception 'good.'
So while Descartes might've believed that goodness depended on God's will, I don't think he meant the kind of arbitrariness that was implied. There are things that God, in principle, cannot will or declare 'good'.Last edited by Charles; 06-13-2017, 03:59 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostAll I have done so far is to claim that we all need to find or identify objective values no matter if we are religious or not. I have pointed to quite many reasons as to why that is the fact. You claim that we can somehow bypass this challenge. But apart from hearing you say you don't believe we will be able to find objective values, I am yet to see how your God is the solution to the problem of the founding of ethics. Even if I wont find any objective vaules, it would not prove you right, you'd be in the same boat. If you do not think so, then please give us arguments instead of claims.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostInteresting points. Once again we suffer from Leibniz not pointing to the source, so we do not know in what context Descartes made those claims and if they are presented accurately. However I do not think it changes anything regarding the main subject matter of this thread. I mean we could basically replace "Descartes" with "anyone" and the points would remain. We could even keep it in the form that instead of saying "Descartes said" we would say "if anyone said". The philosophical point would be the same. In the context of the history of philosophy what you point to is very interesting. And no matter Leibniz's source, you at least point to something that puts Descartes in a different light.
I wouldn't call myself an advocate of Divine Command Theory, but it's worth noting that "God commands" doesn't necessarily entail arbitrariness, or scary hypotheticals.
Comment
-
Originally posted by CharlesYou could try to make it clearer why your God is the solution.
In his Critique of Practical Reason, Immanuel Kant, who has traditionally not been seen as an advocate of Divine Command Theory (for an opposing view see Nuyen, 1998), claims that morality requires faith in God and an afterlifeAtheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Dear Seer
I will try to answer your two latest posts in this one reply. I hope that is going to work (not saying I expect us to agree :-)).
Still impossible to see how pointing to God is an answerGod constitutes moral values through his perfect nature
You have given no account as to why this is good. If it was of a very different kind, you would also just take that to be good, because you have made yourself dependent on a God. So, by accident, you believe in this God and the Muslim believes in another God. No one of you can give any reasonable explanation of what goodness is. You just blindly follow.
Man has to abide by those rules Even if we do not do so in this life, there is an afterlife in which justice will prevail.Kant's points
This makes the case that you could live a moral life but not having any reward. You could actually get into deep trouble, and it could cost you fame, money or whatever to do the right thing. I have yet to see anyone denying that. However, I see no changes in the content of morality in that approach either. The content is the same, and the foundation does not seem to be changed either, however an afterlife will help some people suffering the consequences of doing what is good in moral terms. I do not see how God suddenly changes the facts about what is wrong and wright in the quote you provided.
Keeping things straight
I have already pointed to the fact that the failure of human beings to comply makes no difference as to what they ought to do. I do not even see Kant making that point, his aim is to solve a problem regarding practical application, but it does not change what we need a practical application of. You are messing things up a bit in factual terms, though the question is fair enough.
Deontological ethics Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal lawOne should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treatedLast edited by Charles; 06-14-2017, 04:31 AM.
Comment
-
Charles I'm going to break this up a bit, we will start here. Though I thank you for the well thought out response.
Originally posted by Charles View PostDeontological ethics
But Kant's view does not work on other grounds, he says that lying is always wrong (consequences be damned) - So would lying to the Nazis to save the Jews hidden in your basement be wrong? So if you lie to save a life it does not follow that you always lie, but lying, even to save a life, breaks the maxim.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal lawOne should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated
Of course the fact that the idea is present in ethical reasoning throughout history in cultures who, at the time, had no or an extremely limited knowledge of each other, is interesting. Though it is not a philosophical proof, it is rather an indication that along these lines of thinking we are moving closer to something that is very hard to ignore.
That is important in the context of Kant since a basic line of his reasoning is that reason sets ultimate commandments which we have already touched upon and seen some of the logical reasoning behind.
As we have seen logic alone can not be the defining piece of the puzzle since each of these differing theories can and do offer logical justifications with internal consistencies. So now what?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo now what?
What I find interesting, however, is that you only comment on the part in which I describe lines of reasoning to support my view. I also spend quite a lot of time arguing that your line of reasoning gives no answer at all. That part of it is something that you completely ignore. You can hardly claim I have not done something to describe my view (and its completely fair to disagree). However I find it a bit strange for you to completely ignore the part about your view, giving no answers, and then ask me to provide even more after I have already written quite much to explain my view. So let me ask you your own question: So now what?
And bear in mind that the topic is "a shared condition". If you find that wrong, please give us something to work with.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostThank you for your reply. I will get back to it and give you an answer.
What I find interesting, however, is that you only comment on the part in which I describe lines of reasoning to support my view. I also spend quite a lot of time arguing that your line of reasoning gives no answer at all. That part of it is something that you completely ignore. You can hardly claim I have not done something to describe my view (and its completely fair to disagree). However I find it a bit strange for you to completely ignore the part about your view, giving no answers, and then ask me to provide even more after I have already written quite much to explain my view. So let me ask you your own question: So now what?
And bear in mind that the topic is "a shared condition". If you find that wrong, please give us something to work with.
God constitutes moral values through his perfect nature
You have given no account as to why this is good. If it was of a very different kind, you would also just take that to be good, because you have made yourself dependent on a God. So, by accident, you believe in this God and the Muslim believes in another God. No one of you can give any reasonable explanation of what goodness is. You just blindly follow.
No Charles, clarity is not the question. The question is about ontology.
Here again, you are bringing in your subjective reasoning, what is fair what isn't, what is just or not. But if such a God did exist your sense of morality could no more rise above His than a stream could rise above its source. And it also means that we do live in a just and moral universe, not an indifferent and amoral universe.Last edited by seer; 06-14-2017, 09:16 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSee Charles, if I have this correct, what we are discussing here is what offer a firm foundation for ethics.You know what God and all that includes entails, what we need to discover is there any theory that can even come close. But...
Comment
-
Tass, are you stalking me? Perv!Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment