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
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    So to carry the analogy forward, the fact that some acts will or will not protected/enhance what I value/cherish is as much an objective reality as the fact that my body needs nourishment to eat. No one uses the latter reality to argue that our preference for particular foods is "objective." I don't see how you can therefore use that reality as an argument that morality is any more rooted in objective truths. These realities are nothing more than a context - an environment in which morality (or nourishment) plays out. But our preferences for food are subjective - based in out individual ideas, opinions, and feelings. Our moral principles are likewise rooted in our preferences for what we value/cherish and are also subjective in nature.
    It's not a given that our preferences for particular foods are entirely 'subjective', as I already mentioned. But I'll grant that they are to keep things simple. No one argues that there is a 'subjective' element to morality as there is in matters of taste. Those things are assumed. I am free to do or believe bloody well whatever I want or to eat whatever I want. I can make it my "moral principle" never to express gratitude or never to help anyone in need. I can decide to eat nothing but marshmallows and vodka between sunset and sunrise for the rest of my life. My point is that the mere fact that I am free in both areas does not mean that there are no facts of the matter. My freedom is completely neutral as to this ontological question; the latter has to be evaluated independently.

    So eating is embedded in physical and biochemical facts with real consequences. If there is an inherent "teleology" to eating and drinking, not in the sense of a designed purpose but an intrinsic evolutionary aim, such as nutrition, health, survival and well-being, then I can actually miss the mark IF my aim is to stay alive and to flourish. If I consume Sugar Pops and Vodka all day and night, this activity is embedded in a set of biochemical facts and almost certain consequences independent of my preferences and my knowledge. Likewise, IF morality has an aim, a teleology, which seems even more likely, being a human, meaning-bearing, cultural institution, there could likewise be a set of facts embedding it and constraining moral choices. This would be because of morality's apparent inherent normativity, something that purely biological activities like eating would lack.

    To use another analogy - it is an objective physical fact that pressure exerted by my legs on my bicycle pedals will cause my bike to move forward. It is a function of the physics of the bicycle and my physiology. That does not make my choice of which street to pedal down any less subjective. We select moral principles to protect/enhance the things we subjectively value/cherish. The fact that we subjectively value/cherish these things makes morality implicitly subjective - and inter-subjective in the context of a community. This is simply inescapable. I don't see how you can frame a cogent argument to refute this - and so far do not believe you have done so.
    No one's arguing that objective moral principles compel your assent. You're still a free agent regardless. You're still free to take the five dollar bill from the blind guy when no one's looking instead of the one dollar bill. Just like you're still free to ride your bike wherever you want. It has to do with the conditional. The argument is that morality sets a conditional that can be identified that has something to do with flourishing, well-being, cooperation. That would be analogous to setting the destination to your bike ride. You're still free to chose the route, based on your circumstances, etc, but the general destination, ie the set of facts embedded in the human condition, in rational sociality, is set as a general condition. That's why some moral principles, such a torturing kids for fun, are universally abhorrent and rejected, and others are universally embraced. The universality does not make them true but reflects or indicates their plausible underlying truth.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      I'm not sure what you mean - rules of behavior.
      Obviously, it means behavior governed by the rules of the community. Evolutionary biologists tell us that even the most primitive communities, exercised rules of behavior long before they were attributed to divine revelation. These include subspecies of archaic humans such as Neanderthal Man and Homo Erectus. So, what’s this “objective moral reality” that you postulate underlying their and our behavior other than the evolved need for the necessary behavior to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals.

      Like when our primate cousins steal and rape females, steal each others food and kill their own kind?
      Human society does not generally consider such behavior to be acceptable, despite the antics of Donald Trump. And even among our primate cousins such behavior is instinctively governed by rules.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        That, of course, depends on one's definition of "human" and "sub-human." We've already seen that language is malleable and some people are perfectly comfortable changing the common definitions of words if they don't like them (see discussion on "supernatural") and will justify that change until the cows come home. So - no surprise here.
        Really Carp, so you hold out the possibly that Jews are sub-human? And don't talk to me about changing definitions - pot and kettle thing...



        I don't recall saying "honesty is a requirement for making a moral argument." Indeed, people will make moral arguments on the basis of logic, feelings, or anything else they think is "the right way to do it." You make moral arguments on the basis of what is written in a collection of ancient books you have decided are "the word of god." Whatever basis people choose for making their moral arguments is the basis they will choose. Arguing with them about their moral positions either requires that you adopt their approach, or convince them to change their approach. If neither is possible, we are left with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

        Frankly, it took a bit for me to realize that I was basically pounding my head against a wall with moral arguments when discussing things like same-sex intimacy with you and Sparko and others. I was basically not taking the time to appreciate the basis you folks use, and the limits that places on arguments that have the potential to work in swaying your positions. As soon as I "woke up" and realized the inherent futility of the approach I was trying to take, you will notice that I largely stopped discussing those moral principles with folks here. The discussions are pretty much doomed to failure. I have almost no chance of swaying anyone here to accept same-sex intimacy as moral (or at least morally neutral).
        And if honestly is relative then there really is no rational way to judge another's arguments. Dishonest arguments are no better or worse than honest arguments since honestly itself is a relative consideration. I mean you speak of using logic to help make moral arguments, but how does that work if honesty is not a requirement? As far as the gay thing I'm not sure what your complaint is - you like pizza I like steak.
        Last edited by seer; 09-25-2019, 06:39 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 Post
          Really Carp, so you hold out the possibly that Jews are sub-human?
          No - I'm holding out the possibility that some people will define the terms that way - so it may or may not have anything to do with honesty.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          And don't talk to me about changing definitions - pot and kettle thing...
          I'd be fascinated to know which definitions, when anyone has shown me that my definition is off, I have insisted on using in my own particular way. My memory is that I either adjust my definition when someone shows me it is off, or suggest we need another word for what I am talking about since the common word does not seem to apply.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          And if honestly is relative then there really is no rational way to judge another's arguments.
          Honesty is not relative. Honesty is defined as "the quality of being honest." Honest is defined as "free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere." Someone is either being honest or not, and that is objectively true or not. What is subjective/relative is whether or not "being honest" will be seen as a moral good.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Dishonest arguments are no better or worse than honest arguments since honestly itself is a relative consideration. I mean you speak of using logic to help make moral arguments, but how does that work if honesty is not a requirement? As far as the gay thing I'm not sure what your complaint is - you like pizza I like steak.
          Again - there is no objective frame of reference for subjective positions. Your complaint here is yet another way of saying, "moral subjectivity is bad because it's not moral objectivity." Your opinion is noted, but that's still not an argument. A not being B is not an argument for A being bad because it's not B.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            And all of these points are merely assertions and do not stand in a relationship to one another that one could call an argument, which I assume you wouldn't disagree with :)
            Of course not. I think I've been pretty clear that I know of now way to rationally prove a subjective reality, so there is no formal argument for subjective morality that I am aware of. You asked me about my reasons for holding my position - and I gave them to you. The last one is the "nail in the coffin" for me.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Also, fun fact, all four points map exactly onto all of my analogical arguments.
            You'll have to flesh that out. I'm not seeing it.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            I suggest that it gets repetitious when you don't have any further justification for your position beyond the standard slogans you've already given. When asked to delve deeper and justify why you think that the slogans are true, you simply repeat the slogans in the same or slightly different wording.
            I have no way of "delving deeper" in a subjective position. It's subjective. I can merely report what I see, experience, and conclude. And then I can look at the arguments you put forward and see if they have any merit. So far, no.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Maybe I wasn't clear. I never said that morality is limited to one's life and survival. I'm saying that it's the most urgent interest that nearly everyone has and yet it isn't a moral consideration at all. I used it as a counter-example to your point that whatever one values/cherishes the most will be of the greatest moral consideration.
            It's not a very good counter. I didn't say that "life" or "survival" occupy any necessary position on the spectrum of what we value/cherish. While it is true that there is a strong tendency for "life" and "survival" to be on the high end of what we value/cherish, but there are some things that some people value more and sometimes they value these things significantly less. It is subjective - and varies. So a counter focusing on these two specific things pretty much ignores that reality.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I don't think you successfully answered any of them, including the fallibility, disagreement, or plausibility arguments, or Cuneo's "Normative Web" argument, or the normative background argument, to name but a few. And the nature of morality is more complex than you represent it as being.
            Yes, I know you have that position. You've been clear about your opinion on these matters. Unfortunately, I also respectfully disagree. I feel my responses have gone to the heart of the matter, and your rejection of those responses has simply ignored their merit. I don't see how we're likely to resolve this. I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree. You apparently want to declare a win, so if you feel a need to do so, by all means do so.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            There's a difference between a consensus, if not unanimity indicating a probable underlying truth and a consensus constituting a truth. The former is what I'm referring to. The latter is what you're accusing me of.
            Again, Jim, I don't see a consensus as indicating a probable truth if the consensus is based on a demonstrably false premise or premises. The lack of any argument from the "moral realist" side of the equation that does NOT reduce to "subjective morality is bad because it's not objective" is the fatal flaw in the arguments put forward. I am aware you do not think they reduce to this, but you have not put forward a cogent argument for how they do NOT reduce to this.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            You said you could be wrong in light of reason and rationality.
            I choose to reason from what I value/cherish to the moral principles I hold, and have come to believe it is a good (the best?) approach for developing a consistent moral framework. Therefore, there are two ways to get me to change a moral position:

            1) influence me to change what I value.cherish
            2) demonstrate an error in my reasoning process from what I value/cherish to the moral principle I hold.

            The latter could be considered a form of "moral error" on my part since it is an inconsistency between a moral position I hold and a moral position I WOULD hold if I had properly reasoned from the facts to the moral position.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              You're right. Good catch. How about "phenomenal" or "experiential" in place of "subjective, and their opposites being "mind-independent" or "objective"?
              The shift in language works and I'll try to do so going forward - but it does not solve the problem with the original analogy.

              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              Of course it does. Every ostensibly 'objective' moral principle and moral 'truth' has to be apprehended through or by means of one's individual phenomenal experience of valuing a certain thing, ie 'rooted in' that experience.
              This sentence is the heart of our problem, IMO. In this sentence you acknowledge that our moral principles are rooted in the things we value/cherish, yet claim they remain "objective." You are treating the subjective as nothing more than an individualized or phenomenological lens through which we "apprehend the objective truth," but you have no basis for this claim. I am suggesting that the moral principles are not merely "apprehended" through this valuing - they causally spring from it - rendering them subjective as a consequence.

              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              Every ostensibly 'objective' physical object has to be apprehended by means of one's individual phenomenal sense impression, ie 'rooted in' that impression. Every thought one has must occur by means of an individual physical event in one's brain, and this event is in principle observable and therefore the subject of an individual phenomenal event, ie, 'rooted in' that event. Every inductive ostensible 'truth' must be apprehended by means of a series of individual phenomenal sense impressions, ie, 'rooted in' those impressions. And so forth.
              Again, you are attempting an analogy that simply does not work. Subjective is not the same as phenomenological. The latter is an unavoidable filter through which we perceive everything. The former is a category of thought. We apprehend objective truths through phenomenological experience. No question about it. We also apprehend subjective truths through phenomenological experience. We apprehend ALL truths through phenomenological experience. We apprehend all information - all knowledge - through phenomenological experience. It is unavoidable. But there is no basis for the claim that we apprehend objective truths by way of subjective truths, which is what you are attempting to do here - by fiat.

              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              Okay. Make the proper substitutions of words and it goes through. You're right: "subjective" in this connection has more to do with people's attitudes.

              I did. Substitute the changes.
              See above
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-25-2019, 10:57 AM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                It's not a given that our preferences for particular foods are entirely 'subjective', as I already mentioned. But I'll grant that they are to keep things simple. No one argues that there is a 'subjective' element to morality as there is in matters of taste. Those things are assumed. I am free to do or believe bloody well whatever I want or to eat whatever I want. I can make it my "moral principle" never to express gratitude or never to help anyone in need. I can decide to eat nothing but marshmallows and vodka between sunset and sunrise for the rest of my life. My point is that the mere fact that I am free in both areas does not mean that there are no facts of the matter. My freedom is completely neutral as to this ontological question; the latter has to be evaluated independently.
                Jim, you have basically acknowledged that morality is subjective in this paragraph, and then appear to want to then claim it's not. Look - every person establishes their own moral framework. There are many "facts of the matter." We are subject to the laws of physics. We are subject to our nature as humans. We are (currently) bound to this planet. Societies and relationships have certain dynamics that are unavoidable. These are the "facts of the matter" that establish the context in which we then derive our moral frameworks.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                So eating is embedded in physical and biochemical facts with real consequences.
                Absolutely.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                If there is an inherent "teleology" to eating and drinking, not in the sense of a designed purpose but an intrinsic evolutionary aim, such as nutrition, health, survival and well-being, then I can actually miss the mark IF my aim is to stay alive and to flourish.
                Your "if" is the heart of the matter. It is what renders essentially morality subjective.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                If I consume Sugar Pops and Vodka all day and night, this activity is embedded in a set of biochemical facts and almost certain consequences independent of my preferences and my knowledge.
                Agreed.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                Likewise, IF morality has an aim, a teleology, which seems even more likely, being a human, meaning-bearing, cultural institution, there could likewise be a set of facts embedding it and constraining moral choices. This would be because of morality's apparent inherent normativity, something that purely biological activities like eating would lack.
                The reason we moralize is to sort behavior/action into "ought" and "ought not." That is the purpose of morality. That is the aim of morality.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                No one's arguing that objective moral principles compel your assent. You're still a free agent regardless. You're still free to take the five dollar bill from the blind guy when no one's looking instead of the one dollar bill. Just like you're still free to ride your bike wherever you want. It has to do with the conditional. The argument is that morality sets a conditional that can be identified that has something to do with flourishing, well-being, cooperation.
                If those things are important to me. The fact that they are important to many people - even most people - does not render morality objective. The fact that many people (most people?) like sugar doesn't render "liking sugar" objective.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                That would be analogous to setting the destination to your bike ride. You're still free to chose the route, based on your circumstances, etc, but the general destination, ie the set of facts embedded in the human condition, in rational sociality, is set as a general condition.
                Ummm...no. See my response to this analogy in my previous post. Setting my destination is a subjective activity. It may be informed by a host of objective "matters of fact." But I do not see how you can even begin to make the claim that setting the direction/destination for my bike ride is anything other than subjective: it is rooted in my opinions, ideas, desires, and beliefs.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                That's why some moral principles, such a torturing kids for fun, are universally abhorrent and rejected, and others are universally embraced. The universality does not make them true but reflects or indicates their plausible underlying truth.
                Again - that a wide swath of our population accepts "torturing children for fun is immoral" does not render that position "objectively moral." It simply means that a wide swath of people are aligned on this subjective moral principle. There are underlying realities that influence that widely held moral position, and lead to so many people holding the position. But I do not see any avenue for you to make the claim "torturing children for fun" has its own, objectively derived, truth. You are free to try to - but I do not see how you get there.

                And, as I have said several times, other than assert it - no one has traced that argument from start to finish - in 30+ years - for ANY claimed objectively true moral principle. They all end up with some variation of "it cannot be subjective because then it's not objective," arguments from outrage, or arguments from ridicule. They are the three go-to forms, and none of them works.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  I'd be fascinated to know which definitions, when anyone has shown me that my definition is off, I have insisted on using in my own particular way. My memory is that I either adjust my definition when someone shows me it is off, or suggest we need another word for what I am talking about since the common word does not seem to apply.
                  Right and that was exactly what I was doing with the term supernatural since there is no objective way to distinguish the natural from the supernatural - without begging the question, or arguing in a circle.



                  Honesty is not relative. Honesty is defined as "the quality of being honest." Honest is defined as "free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere." Someone is either being honest or not, and that is objectively true or not. What is subjective/relative is whether or not "being honest" will be seen as a moral good.
                  But that is the point isn't it. If man A makes his moral argument on dishonest grounds and believes that is a moral good where is the relativist to go? Your contrary opinion has no rational or moral weight. You can appeal to the masses - look we all say, that is dishonest - but that is a fallacy. If being honest is not an objective moral good, then being dishonest - rationally - is merely, just another personal preference.


                  Again - there is no objective frame of reference for subjective positions. Your complaint here is yet another way of saying, "moral subjectivity is bad because it's not moral objectivity." Your opinion is noted, but that's still not an argument. A not being B is not an argument for A being bad because it's not B.
                  And you are left with no moral or logical justification for any position. Which begs the question as to why you so often appeal to logical arguments concerning moral disputes.
                  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 Post
                    Right and that was exactly what I was doing with the term supernatural since there is no objective way to distinguish the natural from the supernatural - without begging the question, or arguing in a circle.
                    Actually - no. You were trying to redefine "supernatural." It's a perfectly good word, with a fairly clear definition. You didn't like it and wanted to change it. Some people do that - which was my point.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    But that is the point isn't it. If man A makes his moral argument on dishonest grounds and believes that is a moral good where is the relativist to go?
                    Where we always go if we cannot resolve a conflict of moral positions: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. It is what we all do in such circumstances.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Your contrary opinion has no rational or moral weight.
                    No objective rational or moral weight - but then we know that because morality is subjective. So you just went back to complaining "it can't be subjective, because then it's not objective."

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    You can appeal to the masses - look we all say, that is dishonest - but that is a fallacy.
                    The "masses" determine what the inter-subjective social moral norm is, by definition. The best this appeal can ever be is "in this society...X is the accepted moral norm." The masses do not determine what the moral right/wrong is because such a thing does not exist objectively. Each of us determines this individually and subjectively, with many influences at work.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    If being honest is not an objective moral good, then being dishonest - rationally - is merely, just another personal preference.
                    All morality is a kind of "preference." We've established that.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    And you are left with no moral or logical justification for any position.
                    We are left with no objective moral or logical justification for any position. but then we know that because morality is subjective. So you just went back to complaining "it can't be subjective, because then it's not objective."

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Which begs the question as to why you so often appeal to logical arguments concerning moral disputes.
                    As noted before, I have often done so in error, which is why I stopped. It took me a while to see my error. Indeed, I first realized the error here, on this forum.

                    A moral position that is not grounded in logic cannot be logically discussed. A moral position that IS grounded in logic can be logically discussed. That doesn't mean it can be logically resolved, if the two people having the discussion base their moral principles in different valuing/cherishing. And it will not make any sense to attempt to do so if that is the case. First, the valuing/cherishing would have to be influenced (if it can). Then the logical discussion can proceed. Otherwise, the only choices are ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. That's how it works.

                    You and I are an excellent case in point. It may be that you have (like me) decided that "reason" is the best way to derive moral positions - making a logical discussion possible. But your valuing/cherishing is rooted in your god and the collection of books you believe are "his word." So you will always attempt to reason from this basis to your moral positions. Logic/reason will be useless in a discussion with you because I do not root my moral positions in those things. Failing to see that led me to try to use reason to debate/discuss your moral positions. I have long since stopped.
                    Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-25-2019, 12:38 PM.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Actually - no. You were trying to redefine "supernatural." It's a perfectly good word, with a fairly clear definition. You didn't like it and wanted to change it. Some people do that - which was my point.
                      No it is not since we have no objective way to juxtapose the two. Like I said how do you know this is a "natural" universe? What does that even mean? Compared to what?

                      Where we always go if we cannot resolve a conflict of moral positions: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. It is what we all do in such circumstances.


                      No objective rational or moral weight - but then we know that because morality is subjective. So you just went back to complaining "it can't be subjective, because then it's not objective."
                      So you admit that you have no rational grounds for your moral beliefs?



                      The "masses" determine what the inter-subjective social moral norm is, by definition. The best this appeal can ever be is "in this society...X is the accepted moral norm." The masses do not determine what the moral right/wrong is because such a thing does not exist objectively. Each of us determines this individually and subjectively, with many influences at work.

                      All morality is a kind of "preference." We've established that.

                      We are left with no objective moral or logical justification for any position. but then we know that because morality is subjective. So you just went back to complaining "it can't be subjective, because then it's not objective."
                      OK, been here did that.


                      As noted before, I have often done so in error, which is why I stopped. It took me a while to see my error. Indeed, I first realized the error here, on this forum.

                      A moral position that is not grounded in logic cannot be logically discussed. A moral position that IS grounded in logic can be logically discussed. That doesn't mean it can be logically resolved, if the two people having the discussion base their moral principles in different valuing/cherishing. And it will not make any sense to attempt to do so if that is the case. First, the valuing/cherishing would have to be influenced (if it can). Then the logical discussion can proceed. Otherwise, the only choices are ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. That's how it works.

                      You and I are an excellent case in point. It may be that you have (like me) decided that "reason" is the best way to derive moral positions - making a logical discussion possible. But your valuing/cherishing is rooted in your god and the collection of books you believe are "his word." So you will always attempt to reason from this basis to your moral positions. Logic/reason will be useless in a discussion with you because I do not root my moral positions in those things. Failing to see that led me to try to use reason to debate/discuss your moral positions. I have long since stopped.
                      It is more than that. The reason we can at least argue logically is because we both agree that the laws of logic are absolute, if they weren't we would have no starting point. No common ground. It is even worse where the very idea of honesty is relative. That not only destroys any possible justification, it completely negates any logical path for discussion.
                      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 Post
                        No it is not since we have no objective way to juxtapose the two. Like I said how do you know this is a "natural" universe? What does that even mean? Compared to what?
                        Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
                        Supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

                        The distinction is fairly simple: if we can quantify it as a natural law - testing it with the scientific method - it is considered "natural." If we cannot, it is considered "supernatural." The distinction seems fairly clear. Why you are having a problem is beyond me. But the point was in some people's need to change common definitions. I think you've made the point well.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        So you admit that you have no rational grounds for your moral beliefs?
                        No. But I admit that my moral position cannot be rationally argued by someone who does not share my underlying valuing/cherishing. That is because morality springs from subjective roots - so it is inherently subjective.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        OK, been here did that.
                        Yep. We have. Your argument lack of argument has not changed.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        It is more than that. The reason we can at least argue logically is because we both agree that the laws of logic are absolute, if they weren't we would have no starting point. No common ground.
                        The laws of logic are a necessary but not sufficient condition for having a rational discussion. A rational discussion also requires agreement on the truth of the premises that make up the arguments. In the objective world, that often depends on our selection and interpretation of evidence. In the subjective world, it simply depends on our underlying premises aligning. If we both like pastel colors, we can have a rational discussion about selecting a color for our rooms. If we do not, then no amount of rational discussion will help.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        It is even worse where the very idea of honesty is relative. That not only destroys any possible justification, it completely negates any logical path for discussion.
                        Agreed. If one does not value honesty, any rational argument is essentially pointless - leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                        But then again, if one does not value reason (preferring, perhaps, feelings), any rational argument is essentially pointless - leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                        And then again, if one does not value "god" and "the bible" (preferring, perhaps, humanity and science), any rational argument is essentially pointless - leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                        And then again, if any two people do not value similarly, any rational argument is essentially pointless - leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                        There are many things that render "rational discussion" pointless. Honesty is just one of them.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          This sentence is the heart of our problem, IMO. In this sentence you acknowledge that our moral principles are rooted in the things we value/cherish, yet claim they remain "objective." You are treating the subjective as nothing more than an individualized or phenomenological lens through which we "apprehend the objective truth," but you have no basis for this claim. I am suggesting that the moral principles are not merely "apprehended" through this valuing - they causally spring from it - rendering them subjective as a consequence.
                          The point of all the analogies is that the mere fact that a kind of apprehension is 'rooted in' immediate experience does not mean that the knowledge ultimately extrapolated from that apprehension is reducible to that immediate experience. Scientific knowledge is 'rooted in' immediate sensory experience, but scientific knowledge isn't merely immediate sensory experience. My knowledge of my physical surroundings, of my room, my house and yard, are all 'rooted in' immediate sense experience, but this knowledge isn't merely sense experience. Logic, reason, inference, habit, etc also enter in.And BTW, just because X "causally springs" from Y, or that Y causally contributes to X, does not mean that X ontologically reduces to Y.



                          Again, you are attempting an analogy that simply does not work. Subjective is not the same as phenomenological. The latter is an unavoidable filter through which we perceive everything. The former is a category of thought. We apprehend objective truths through phenomenological experience. No question about it. We also apprehend subjective truths through phenomenological experience. We apprehend ALL truths through phenomenological experience. We apprehend all information - all knowledge - through phenomenological experience. It is unavoidable. But there is no basis for the claim that we apprehend objective truths by way of subjective truths, which is what you are attempting to do here - by fiat.
                          I'm not saying we apprehend objective truths by way of subjective truths. I'm saying we apprehend objective truths by way of phenomenological truths. There is a phenomenology to valuing and preferences. What you're saying is that because all moral beliefs are 'rooted in' (however you define that term) individual subjective preferences, that all moral beliefs are therefore nothing more than such preferences. What I'm saying is that all moral beliefs are rooted in the experience of individual preferences, and therefore, to reduce them like you do is no different than to reduce scientific knowledge to the experience in which it's rooted, or our knowledge of other minds to the experience in which it's rooted, etc.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
                            Supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

                            The distinction is fairly simple: if we can quantify it as a natural law - testing it with the scientific method - it is considered "natural." If we cannot, it is considered "supernatural."
                            The distinction seems fairly clear. Why you are having a problem is beyond me. But the point was in some people's need to change common definitions. I think you've made the point well.
                            The bolded seem to me to be a bit of a peculiar way to set the two definitions of natural and supernatural against each other. I can easily envision a universe created by "a force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature (i.e God)" but which still operate under scientifically scrutable laws of nature. Under the definitions of natural and supernatural which you've provided above it seems to me that you would have to say that such a universe would be both supernatural and natural at the same time.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              Jim, you have basically acknowledged that morality is subjective in this paragraph, and then appear to want to then claim it's not. Look - every person establishes their own moral framework. There are many "facts of the matter." We are subject to the laws of physics. We are subject to our nature as humans. We are (currently) bound to this planet. Societies and relationships have certain dynamics that are unavoidable. These are the "facts of the matter" that establish the context in which we then derive our moral frameworks.
                              You misunderstand. You keep thinking that there must be one and only one kind of "objectivity." All objective things, for you, must fit the same exact mold. They must all conform to the one true model of objectivity which is that of physical truths, eg gravity. You seem to harbor physicalist assumptions, which may be the crux of our problem. One is not "compelled" to believe correctly about morality the way one is "compelled" to believe correctly about gravity. You're free to believe that torturing children for fun is okay or even required. You're also free to believe that 2+2=5. Ie you're free to be wrong.


                              Your "if" is the heart of the matter. It is what renders essentially morality subjective.
                              You don't think there's any reason or purpose for morality? Why would there be such a basic foundational element of human life and culture without any reason for being? Can you think of any other such fundamental aspect of life without any possible or potential purpose or function? To claim no possible purpose for morality ALONE seems to be a case of special pleading made for no other reason than specifically to justify an already arrived at position of ethical subjectivism.

                              But if morality DOES have a purpose, a functional purpose, as opposed to a metaphysical reason for being, it seems reasonable to infer that it includes in part the promotion of flourishing and welfare and the amelioration of suffering. If it does, then certain moral principles such as

                              Do not cause unnecessary suffering

                              seems like a safe bet and it would NOT be a matter of individual choice or attitude.


                              The reason we moralize is to sort behavior/action into "ought" and "ought not." That is the purpose of morality. That is the aim of morality.
                              That's vacuously generic and simplistic, once again. It's like saying "The purpose of morality is to live." "I ought not clip my toenails over the sink cause then my toenails will clog the drain." "I ought not put the onions in before the celery because then the onions will get too soft."



                              If those things are important to me. The fact that they are important to many people - even most people - does not render morality objective. The fact that many people (most people?) like sugar doesn't render "liking sugar" objective.
                              You deny that you subscribe to the "Diversity Thesis" but here you are once again arguing for the "Diversity Thesis." Oddly enough. I never used consensus as part of my argument. But the fact that there is diversity of opinion is a singularly bad argument against objectivity.



                              Ummm...no. See my response to this analogy in my previous post. Setting my destination is a subjective activity. It may be informed by a host of objective "matters of fact." But I do not see how you can even begin to make the claim that setting the direction/destination for my bike ride is anything other than subjective: it is rooted in my opinions, ideas, desires, and beliefs.
                              Once again, it's set by the CONDITIONAL. IF you want to get to the post office, this is the best route to take with your bike. If you want to subscribe to the "moral way of life," and assuming that there is a functional aim to morality, like there is a way to the post office, then try to be honest, be just, don't inflict unnecesary harm, etc.



                              Again - that a wide swath of our population accepts "torturing children for fun is immoral" does not render that position "objectively moral." It simply means that a wide swath of people are aligned on this subjective moral principle. There are underlying realities that influence that widely held moral position, and lead to so many people holding the position. But I do not see any avenue for you to make the claim "torturing children for fun" has its own, objectively derived, truth. You are free to try to - but I do not see how you get there.
                              The "Diversity Thesis" Argument again. I thought we'd left that one behind. I get there by all the arguments I've made, posted, linked to, making some underlying objective truth more plausible than no truth and mere subjective opinions.

                              And, as I have said several times, other than assert it - no one has traced that argument from start to finish - in 30+ years - for ANY claimed objectively true moral principle. They all end up with some variation of "it cannot be subjective because then it's not objective," arguments from outrage, or arguments from ridicule. They are the three go-to forms, and none of them works.
                              It's easy to say that things "don't work" when you don't fully engage them and when you refuse to look at your own pre-suppositions.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

                                The distinction is fairly simple: if we can quantify it as a natural law - testing it with the scientific method - it is considered "natural." If we cannot, it is considered "supernatural." The distinction seems fairly clear. Why you are having a problem is beyond me. But the point was in some people's need to change common definitions. I think you've made the point well.
                                So consciousness is supernatural?



                                No. But I admit that my moral position cannot be rationally argued by someone who does not share my underlying valuing/cherishing. That is because morality springs from subjective roots - so it is inherently subjective.
                                Sounds like something a cult member would say! Even if something "springs from" subjective roots, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be objective reasons for believing it. Otherwise why have you been on here defending it for the past several weeks or months? Are you a masochist?


                                Agreed. If one does not value honesty, any rational argument is essentially pointless - leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                                But then again, if one does not value reason (preferring, perhaps, feelings), any rational argument is essentially pointless - leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                                And then again, if one does not value "god" and "the bible" (preferring, perhaps, humanity and science), any rational argument is essentially pointless - leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                                And then again, if any two people do not value similarly, any rational argument is essentially pointless - leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                                There are many things that render "rational discussion" pointless. Honesty is just one of them.
                                That's ridiculous. You're essentially saying that no two people with different metaphysical views can have a rational exchange of ideas about their views. Why are you on here then? Your very presence speaks louder than your words.

                                What Seer is saying, I think, is that honesty is the pre-condition for any exchange of ideas. You can't even know what the other person thinks or that their ideas are incompatible with yours if there isn't a baseline of honesty.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X