Atheism And Moral Progress

[JimL]

Tassman your objection to my response to JimL doesn't even compute. And you are not helping him a bit. He believes morals are objective. You don't.

Again, you just can't seem to follow Sparko. I don't believe that morals are objective existing things, what I believe is that the results that moral behaviors have on society are factual.

[JimL]

http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/ency...oc/egp.war.023

Wasn't good for those who were killed or for those whose horses were stolen and it wasn't good for those who had to constantly be on the lookout in fear. They were also enemies, not from a common community.

[mattbballman31]

Consider evolution. "Progress" in evolution exists. It is always towards optimizing the species for its environmental niche. But if the environmental niche changes, then the "direction" of progress will change as well. We have even seen species loose features only to reacquire them later when an environmental niche shifts and then shifts back. Progress in morality may well be similar to that model. It doesn't have an absolute/objective goal that is fixed, but it is always moving people towards better and better protection of what they value. It's just that what they value can change over time.

Well, first, I'd say that I don't know what the scare-quotes mean for 'progress' (is it quasi-progress?). My main point is that if moral realism is true (and that's compatible with evolutionary progress {or the evolutionary progress overlaps with the moral properties postulated by a variety of moral realism[s]}), then there's progress 'simpliciter'. Second, the kind of progress you're talking about is unintelligible to me. If the enironmental niche is constantly shifting (and there's a measure of progress relative to this ever-changing niche), what assurance does the evolutionary moralist have that the ever-changing niches will correspond to (or overlap with) a set of moral properties against which a variety of moral realisms could correlate with? It would be like shooting a basketball into a hoop that evolves into a soccer goal, and then kicking a soccer ball into a soccer goal that evolves into a football endzone, and then throwing a hail-mary to a player in the football endzone that evolves into the homeplate in baseball, and so on. Sure: there's measures of progress relative to each evolving game, but if the measure of progress relative to each game is constantly evolving to different measures of progress relative to other games (other environmental niches), I need extra reason to believe that these ever-changing environmental niches could ever correspond to a static moral realism (according to which there are 'true' moral propositions that correspond to {'objectively there'} morally relevant state of affairs). You need moral realism for progress - moral 'progress' (as you call it) isn't the kind of progress you need on moral realism. Any sort of moral realism that's worthy of the name is certainly not going to be dependent on what humans happen to value (moral realism would be able to measure whether or not the values such humans possess are, in fact, good or bad {or better or worse} 'simpliciter').

[Sparko]

No, I'm saying that there are people, reasoning, logical people who when putting 2 and 2 together can conclude the obvious, and then there are pigheaded people who believe in what they call alternate facts. Nowadays we call them republicans/conservatives.

So rather than back up your claims with evidence you just make another joke?

[Sparko]

Again, you just can't seem to follow Sparko. I don't believe that morals are objective existing things, what I believe is that the results that moral behaviors have on society are factual.

You claimed several times that something is moral or immoral regardless what anyone thinks about it. That, JimL, is the definition of objective morality. As I have said many times in this thread, you don't seem to even grasp what you lay claim to as a moral theory. You make one statement claiming that morals are objective, then make another statement contradicting that, then deny you contradicted yourself and then repeat your claims to objective morality. When I try to point out your inconsistency you double down or make stupid jokes to avoid the point. I can't tell if you are genuinely stupid or just too arrogant to admit that you are ignorant on the subject.

[Sparko]

Wasn't good for those who were killed or for those whose horses were stolen and it wasn't good for those who had to constantly be on the lookout in fear. They were also enemies, not from a common community.

The other communities did the same thing in return and considered success an honor. So you have a society where thievery was considered to be moral and even honorable. The point was to steal the horses without killing the enemy, to show how good they were. If they were caught they were killed, but they didn't kill their enemies. So they engaged in a high risk activity to steal the horses and gain honor from it. And their enemies did the same in return. So for the Plains Indians stealing was moral. They did this instead of going to war with each other, so it kept the peace.

According to you however, it was still immoral because it doesn't matter what they believed, they were wrong. Yet it worked for their society and you have also said that the purpose of morals was to make society better, and to keep the peace. The horse stealing did both.

[carpedm9587]

Well, first, I'd say that I don't know what the scare-quotes mean for 'progress' (is it quasi-progress?). My main point is that if moral realism is true (and that's compatible with evolutionary progress {or the evolutionary progress overlaps with the moral properties postulated by a variety of moral realism[s]}), then there's progress 'simpliciter'. Second, the kind of progress you're talking about is unintelligible to me. If the enironmental niche is constantly shifting (and there's a measure of progress relative to this ever-changing niche), what assurance does the evolutionary moralist have that the ever-changing niches will correspond to (or overlap with) a set of moral properties against which a variety of moral realisms could correlate with? It would be like shooting a basketball into a hoop that evolves into a soccer goal, and then kicking a soccer ball into a soccer goal that evolves into a football endzone, and then throwing a hail-mary to a player in the football endzone that evolves into the homeplate in baseball, and so on. Sure: there's measures of progress relative to each evolving game, but if the measure of progress relative to each game is constantly evolving to different measures of progress relative to other games (other environmental niches), I need extra reason to believe that these ever-changing environmental niches could ever correspond to a static moral realism (according to which there are 'true' moral propositions that correspond to {'objectively there'} morally relevant state of affairs). You need moral realism for progress - moral 'progress' (as you call it) isn't the kind of progress you need on moral realism. Any sort of moral realism that's worthy of the name is certainly not going to be dependent on what humans happen to value (moral realism would be able to measure whether or not the values such humans possess are, in fact, good or bad {or better or worse} 'simpliciter').

Your problem is that you are assuming "moral realism" is true and trying to fit it to the discussion. Moral realism, IMO, has never been shown to be true, and the entire concept does not fit with what we observe around us at all times. There is no absolute/objective basis for moral frameworks. It simply does not exist, and has never been shown to exist. Morality is not static, and never has been.

[mattbballman31]

Your problem is that you are assuming "moral realism" is true and trying to fit it to the discussion. Moral realism, IMO, has never been shown to be true, and the entire concept does not fit with what we observe around us at all times. There is no absolute/objective basis for moral frameworks. It simply does not exist, and has never been shown to exist. Morality is not static, and never has been.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that the only way you can progress is if moral realism is true: any other kind of genuine progress is unintelligible to me. What are your standards for 'showing' something to be true? Philosophy doesn't use the same methods as science (and even when they do, the methods relate to the relata differently compared with how scientific methods relate to their relata). I already listed some philosophical heavyweights (atheists, all of them) that subscribe to moral realism. And I wholeheartedly disagree with you: to me, moral realism jives with my observations quite elegantly (more so that what my senses tell me about the world). Be careful not to confuse absolute and objective bases (they're different). And be careful not to confuse the bases with individual or collective applications of the bases (the latter can be relative and situational and be entirely compossible with moral realism). I just need to know where you're coming from so I can address your specific concerns.

[JimL]

So rather than back up your claims with evidence you just make another joke?

That's wasn't a joke, it was a fact. Morals are about the good of society as a whole, which your argument above doesn't address. It's better to get along with your nieghbors than it is to be constantly stealing and killing each other. Not really rocket science.

[JimL]

You claimed several times that something is moral or immoral regardless what anyone thinks about it. That, JimL, is the definition of objective morality. As I have said many times in this thread, you don't seem to even grasp what you lay claim to as a moral theory. You make one statement claiming that morals are objective, then make another statement contradicting that, then deny you contradicted yourself and then repeat your claims to objective morality. When I try to point out your inconsistency you double down or make stupid jokes to avoid the point. I can't tell if you are genuinely stupid or just too arrogant to admit that you are ignorant on the subject.

You're confusing the moral/law, which in and of itself does not exist, with the moral behavior and it's resulting effect. The resulting good or bad effect that behaviors have on the community, is what makes those behaviors either moral or immoral regardless of what anyone thinks. Get it now? If being killed is not good for you, if being robbed is not good for you, etc etc., then a society in which those behaviors are considered to be immoral is good for you.

[Tassman]

http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/ency...oc/egp.war.023

This is the "us and them" mentality of tribalism. Tribal consciousness and loyalty elevated one's own tribe above other groups. Morality pertained to one's own group whereby anything goes for enemy tribes.

[Sparko]

That's wasn't a joke, it was a fact. Morals are about the good of society as a whole, which your argument above doesn't address. It's better to get along with your nieghbors than it is to be constantly stealing and killing each other. Not really rocket science.

Jim, I gave you an example where what you think is immoral was actually good for a society and you still said it was immoral. So your standard isn't what is good for society. Your actual standard is "What JimL thinks is good for society"

[Sparko]

You're confusing the moral/law, which in and of itself does not exist, with the moral behavior and it's resulting effect. The resulting good or bad effect that behaviors have on the community, is what makes those behaviors either moral or immoral regardless of what anyone thinks. Get it now? If being killed is not good for you, if being robbed is not good for you, etc etc., then a society in which those behaviors are considered to be immoral is good for you.

So now the standard is "what is good for YOU?"

Make up your mind JimL, you are all over the place.

[JimL]

So now the standard is "what is good for YOU?"

Make up your mind JimL, you are all over the place.

I'm afraid I just can't get through to you Sparko. Morality is what is good for you, but not good for you alone, it is what is good for the entire community thus the adage: "do unto others....."

[seer]

I'm afraid I just can't get through to you Sparko. Morality is what is good for you, but not good for you alone, it is what is good for the entire community thus the adage: "do unto others....."

So how does do unto others apply to the unborn Jim? How is it good for a community to abort millions of its own offspring?