Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[Tassman]

You have it exactly backwards. Kant moves from morality to God, the idea is that if morality is rational the good need to be rewarded and the wicked punished. Of course in this life it is often the opposite, hence we need God to balance the scales of justice. And if that is not the case morality is irrational - it would be irrational not to take advantage if it serves your purpose.

What ethics? War, rape, murder, selfishness, greed, lust, etc...

The same ethics that tell us such things are bad and that peace, treating people with respect and generosity etc are good.

[seer]

What is reality?

OK

The real consequences

Again Charles, we all "assume" that we have access to reality, but my point remains - that assumption can not be justified deductively or empirically without begging the question.

But how does this change anything Charles? I'm assuming that we are not (generally) deceived, and the argument holds no matter the possible consequences. Bringing up consequences does not make the necessary deductive argument. And no, I'm not just speaking for myself, anyone here is free to make this deductive case - I haven't seen it, nor Charles have you even come close to presenting one.


Even if this is the case it is not a positive argument.

B]Either skip it or hold on to a something we cannot ever know[/B]

Again Charles, I do "assume" that we do have access to reality - but it is painfully obviously that that assumption can not be proven.

An ever moving target

You keep pointing to possible consequences without making a logical argument. And it is not a moving target - if you did make a deductive argument that would be the end of it, since you can't what you wrote above are logical possibilities. And Charles in this whole discussion you have yet to even attempt to make a deductive case - and you know you can't. So if logic is not the ground for your justification - what is? Possible icky consequences?

[seer]

Right, that is where we differ - you think moral systems that are unjust or lacking justice are rational. I suspect that they are not.

The same ethics that tell us such things are bad and that peace, treating people with respect and generosity etc are good.

Yet things like war, rape, murder, selfishness, greed, lust, etc... are all part of the natural process. Like the study I posted a while back that showed that rape offered an evolutionary advantage for higher primates and men. Why do you hate nature so much Tass?

[Charles]

You keep pointing to possible consequences without making a logical argument. And it is not a moving target - if you did make a deductive argument that would be the end of it, since you can't what you wrote above are logical possibilities. And Charles in this whole discussion you have yet to even attempt to make a deductive case - and you know you can't. So if logic is not the ground for your justification - what is? Possible icky consequences?

It appears you completely missed the point. I am not trying to give a positive answer. I am trying to make it clear to you that your question is based on a misunderstanding and therefore it makes no sense to answer it.

By the way: It does not make much sense to base the concept of reality on what you assume. If it is only your assumption, why would I take that as reality?

[seer]

It appears you completely missed the point. I am not trying to give a positive answer. I am trying to make it clear to you that your question is based on a misunderstanding and therefore it makes no sense to answer it.

Nonsense Charles, you know that you can not make a positive case that is why you had to appeal to a negative argument. And I misunderstood nothing. You can not make a deductive case.

By the way: It does not make much sense to base the concept of reality on what you assume. If it is only your assumption, why would I take that as reality?

What do you have that is more than assumption Charles? Deductive reasoning? What?

[JimL]

Right Jim, it could be one individual or all of mankind under the control of an Alien race. It makes no difference to the problem of deductively justifying our experience.

If it is all of mankind, then that is our reality, there would be no external reality as far as we and our world are concerned. That would be the Matrix scenario, any external reality that may exist would have nothing to do with the world of our experience of being part of a Matrix. There may indeed be another reality, external to the one we inhabit that doesn't correspond with our experience, such as another universe external to our own, so we can only know that our minds correspond to the world that we inhabit, any externally existing world is irrelevant.

[seer]

If it is all of mankind, then that is our reality, there would be no external reality as far as we and our world are concerned. That would be the Matrix scenario, any external reality that may exist would have nothing to do with the world of our experience of being part of a Matrix. There may indeed be another reality, external to the one we inhabit that doesn't correspond with our experience, such as another universe external to our own, so we can only know that our minds correspond to the world that we inhabit, any externally existing world is irrelevant.

But the real world would still exist even if we did not know it or were deceived. But this does not change the problem of deductively justifying our experience.

[JimL]

But the real world would still exist even if we did not know it or were deceived. But this does not change the problem of deductively justifying our experience.

No, not the real world, but another real world. If you live in a matrix world, then whether or not there exists another external world would be irrelevant. If there is another universe, external to the one we inhabit, that wouldn't make the one we inhabit any less real.

[seer]

No, not the real world, but another real world. If you live in a matrix world, then whether or not there exists another external world would be irrelevant. If there is another universe, external to the one we inhabit, that wouldn't make the one we inhabit any less real.

Jim if you were in a coma, and a dream state for the rest of your life would that dream state be a real world?

[Tassman]

Right, that is where we differ - you think moral systems that are unjust or lacking justice are rational. I suspect that they are not.

"Unjust" compared to what?

Yet things like war, rape, murder, selfishness, greed, lust, etc... are all part of the natural process.

So is our recognition that they need to be contained because they are socially harmful, hence our development of the rules of behaviour we call morality. Morality exists as a means of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups

[Tassman]

But the real world would still exist even if we did not know it or were deceived. But this does not change the problem of deductively justifying our experience.

And what is the "real world" seer? Can you deductively conclude its existence?

[Charles]

Nonsense Charles, you know that you can not make a positive case that is why you had to appeal to a negative argument. And I misunderstood nothing. You can not make a deductive case.



What do you have that is more than assumption Charles? Deductive reasoning? What?

Like I have said a couple of times the question is based on a misunderstanding and thus it cannot be answered. But that is really no problem.

[Charles]

Yet things like war, rape, murder, selfishness, greed, lust, etc... are all part of the natural process. Like the study I posted a while back that showed that rape offered an evolutionary advantage for higher primates and men. Why do you hate nature so much Tass?

Murder of homosexuals was part of your own religious tradition. And we could go on to mention moral absurdities and killings on the old testament.

[seer]

Like I have said a couple of times the question is based on a misunderstanding and thus it cannot be answered. But that is really no problem.

No Charles, it can not be answered using deductive reasoning, you know that, that is why you are using subterfuge. Then you questioned my using an assumption as it relates to us knowing reality, yet you offer nothing else. You have to make the exact same assumption without logical justification. That my good man is hypocritical.

[seer]

Murder of homosexuals was part of your own religious tradition. And we could go on to mention moral absurdities and killings on the old testament.

And those are wrong why? See Tass is a determinist, with the laws nature determining our thoughts, beliefs and actions. So what you find in the Old Testament are merely behaviors determined by nature.