Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

Because Carp you go off on tangents and avoid the core of the question. My question is a yes or no. And you well know that the answer is yes. Your moral framework has no bearing on whether the law of God is applied to you or not, neither does your sentience. Just as ones disbelief in logical absolutes or the laws of logic in general does not prevent you from running headlong in their reality. It is really a simple point.

Previously answered. See my previous response.

Then why play the "might makes right" card in the first place? As if that was some kind of horrible moral wrong?

I was pointing out a disconnect in your own moral framework, which rejects "might makes right," IIRC, yet that is the basis of your argument about god: "consequences" based in god's ability to exact punishment/reward. Subjective morality accounts for this dynamic. Your framework is hopelessly caught in internal inconsistencies and claims you cannot show to be true.

[seer]

Previously answered. See my previous response.

Your previous responses were convoluted, and never gave a coherent reason why the law of God would not apply to you. You said:

If god exists, the moral law of god is god's moral framework - not mine. Your hypothetical god can punish me (or reward me) for disagreeing with and not following (or agreeing with and following) this god's moral code, but the code has no binding authority on me. Once I became sentient, I gained the ability to determine my own moral framework.

The law of God would be applied to you and have authority over you whether you believed it or not, your beliefs or moral framework play no part. Your sentience may lead you to believe that the laws of logic are not absolute, does that now mean that they have no authority over you? Both positions are incoherent.

I was pointing out a disconnect in your own moral framework, which rejects "might makes right," IIRC, yet that is the basis of your argument about god: "consequences" based in god's ability to exact punishment/reward. Subjective morality accounts for this dynamic. Your framework is hopelessly caught in internal inconsistencies and claims you cannot show to be true.

That is just silly Carp, you brought up the "might makes right" thing which is a meaningless distinction in your relative world. And God's law is based on His absolute moral character and His omniscient (knowing all possible and actual consequences of moral acts). Nothing inconsistent about that. And it is not inconsistent to say that His law has authority over you any more than saying that the laws of this nation have authority over you even if they don't fit your moral frame work - just try breaking them. And remember you can not show that the laws of logic are either universal or absolute.

[carpedm9587]

Your previous responses were convoluted, and never gave a coherent reason why the law of God would not apply to you. You said:

If god exists, the moral law of god is god's moral framework - not mine. Your hypothetical god can punish me (or reward me) for disagreeing with and not following (or agreeing with and following) this god's moral code, but the code has no binding authority on me. Once I became sentient, I gained the ability to determine my own moral framework.

Correct - I did. There is nothing convoluted about the answer. If your god exists and has a moral framework - it is the moral framework of that sentient being. It is not mine, and has no authority over mine. I also gave you two parallel scenarios showing how the principle that applies to a society also applies to a god. You called them interesting and then ignored them to go on a rant about "might makes right." You might want to try actually responding to that argument.

The law of God would be applied to you and have authority over you whether you believed it or not, your beliefs or moral framework play no part.

You cannot show how this is so - except to argue that this god can punish/reward me. ANY agency more powerful than I can punish/reward me for differing/aligning to their moral framework see above-referenced scenarios). That does not give them "authority" over me. It just means they are more powerful than I am. I am an independent moral agent. If you think otherwise, then you need to make the case for how the moral framework of one moral agent is binding on a completely different moral agent.

Your sentience may lead you to believe that the laws of logic are not absolute, does that now mean that they have no authority over you? Both positions are incoherent.

As previously shown - you are comparing apples to oranges: a set of principles that are absolute/objective and describe how reality functions, and a set of principles that are possibly absolute (in the case of your hypothetical god) but are subjective and sort actions into "you should" and "you shouldn't." They aren't even in the same ballpark. Moral principles are analogous to legal ones, not the laws of logic or mathematics. They have nothing in common except your assertion that they do.

Prediction: you're going to go on a rant about how we can't prove the laws of logic/mathematics are absolute, universal, and objective. You do that a lot. We already know that, Seer. That doesn't make it a hole through which you can drive ANY proposition without proof.

That is just silly Carp, you brought up the "might makes right" thing which is a meaningless distinction in your relative world.

I brought it up to show that you are basically arguing "might makes right." IIRC, that is inconsistent with your own moral framework. It is also inconsistent with my own. It may or may not be how other people select their moral positions (I'm sure some do).

And God's law is based on His absolute moral character and His omniscient (knowing all possible and actual consequences of moral acts). Nothing inconsistent about that. And it is not inconsistent to say that His law has authority over you any more than saying that the laws of this nation have authority over you even if they don't fit your moral frame work - just try breaking them. And remember you can not show that the laws of logic are either universal or absolute.

Yeah - you've said all this before. The assertion has improved with the retelling.

[Tassman]

Again - this is a hard slog for you to defend, especially in the face of historically changing moral norms, and the existence of moral norms that would seem to fly in the face of "survival."

Again, the alternative is to say that moral norms are not based upon the prime imperative of survival, which is also nonsense. You seem to want it both ways.

You have said this repeatedly, Tass. I know it is your opinion - I just don't think you can defend it as stated.

Unless you are going to argue, as seer does, that that we are independent moral agents exercising libertarian free will you have little choice. Our ability to moralize and what we moralize about are both grounded in evolutionary development. It is not the only factor but it is a crucial one and one we cannot escape.

No - I'm not. I know it has significant influence. I know it is highly likely that my moral views will significantly align with my society. Other influences include religion, family, friends, and now the entire phenomenon of social media has widened all of that to almost worldwide. But society does not dictate my moral positions.

I did not say that society "dictates"

The individual still has primacy and CAN escape that influence for any number of reasons. Many do not. But if society determined my moral views, there would be no change in social moral norms. It is the fact that individuals have primacy that makes changing social norms possible.

This is the Compatibilist position, which is where I stand (as per Daniel Dennett). But I suggest that our decision-making primacy is not as decisive as you like to think it is. Dennett refers to it as "elbow room".

Your argument (though I don't really see an argument - I see mostly an assertion) supports the claim that the ability to moralize has developed through evolutionary pressure. It does not support the claim that "moral position X" is evolutionarily driven. The link between genetics and human traits is clear, including the structure of the mind which gives rise to sentience. The link between genetics and specific thoughts...? That case is not made.

[seer]

This is the Compatibilist position, which is where I stand (as per Daniel Dennett). But I suggest that our decision-making primacy is not as decisive as you like to think it is. Dennett refers to it as "elbow room".

There is no actual elbow room in Dennett's position, in that you can not do other than what you did in any given situation.

I Could not have Done Otherwise--So What? by Daniel Dennett

https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites/...%20Dennett.pdf

So where is the "elbow room" Tass?

[carpedm9587]

We actually call that a "false dichotomy," and not really a response to the challenge put forward. That "moral position X" is influenced by social and environmental pressures is clear and well established. That it is dictated by them - or that there is ANY link between genetics and "moral position X" is not. As I have said many times, the individual is the final moral authority. They determine whether they accept the social pressure, or reject it. Some may do so blindly, without question, or out of habit. That does not make them any less the final authority on their moral position.

Again, the alternative is to say that moral norms are not based upon the prime imperative of survival, which is also nonsense. You seem to want it both ways.

Again - false dichotomy. Some more positions are influenced by that need (i.e., respect for life). Some you would have a long slog to show have anything to do with survival of the person OR the species (i.e., extending that respect for life to people with life-threatening genetics such as sickle cell anemia).

Unless you are going to argue, as seer does, that that we are independent moral agents exercising libertarian free will you have little choice. Our ability to moralize and what we moralize about are both grounded in evolutionary development. It is not the only factor but it is a crucial one and one we cannot escape.

Actually - we ARE independent moral agents awash in a stew of influencing factors that include social norms, religious norms, family tradition, personal experience, and even environmental context. In a sense, evolution does play a role, if you are referring to social evolution. Social evolution is just another way to say "social norms." But your posts seem to have been about biological evolution. I repeat - you can make the link between biological evolution and the ability to moralize because that ability is a function of sentience. I know of no way to make a link between biological evolution and "holding Moral Position X," other than simply asserting it. If you have evidence supporting this position, I'd love to look at it.

I did not say that society "dictates"

Well...that gets down to what you mean by "free." The word is tossed around a great deal. None of us is ever completely "free." We are constrained by what we are not physiologically capable of doing. We are constrained by limits to our intelligence and reasoning abilities. We are influenced by a wide variety of factors. Many of us make choices without applying a great deal of thought, merely out of habit or custom. I have no argument with that observation. Our degree freedom really is a function of how/where we were raised and by whom. A child growing up in a neo-nazi home and constantly indoctrinated with hatred of those who are black or Jewish will likely grow up to hate those who are black or Jewish. But we will still hold this person accountable for their actions if they shoot up a school because we all live in a wider context than just our upbringing, and we all have the power to reject those messages as we mature.

This is the Compatibilist position, which is where I stand (as per Daniel Dennett). But I suggest that our decision-making primacy is not as decisive as you like to think it is. Dennett refers to it as "elbow room".

See above.

OK - it appears we are more in agreement than disagreement. It is possible that I have left the impression that I think all of us are "free as birds" with respect to moral choice. Your posts have definitely left me with the impression that you think moral positions are determined by evolution and society. Perhaps the truth, for both of us, is closer to the middle.

[seer]

Correct - I did. There is nothing convoluted about the answer. If your god exists and has a moral framework - it is the moral framework of that sentient being. It is not mine, and has no authority over mine. I also gave you two parallel scenarios showing how the principle that applies to a society also applies to a god. You called them interesting and then ignored them to go on a rant about "might makes right." You might want to try actually responding to that argument.

You cannot show how this is so - except to argue that this god can punish/reward me. ANY agency more powerful than I can punish/reward me for differing/aligning to their moral framework see above-referenced scenarios). That does not give them "authority" over me. It just means they are more powerful than I am. I am an independent moral agent. If you think otherwise, then you need to make the case for how the moral framework of one moral agent is binding on a completely different moral agent.

Again Carp you are not making sense, the analogy of logical laws completely undermines your claim

As previously shown - you are comparing apples to oranges: a set of principles that are absolute/objective and describe how reality functions, and a set of principles that are possibly absolute (in the case of your hypothetical god) but are subjective and sort actions into "you should" and "you shouldn't." They aren't even in the same ballpark. Moral principles are analogous to legal ones, not the laws of logic or mathematics. They have nothing in common except your assertion that they do.

Nonsense Carp, the point follows. There are things in this universe that have authority over you whether you agree with them or not, whether the fit your mental or moral framework or not. Your acceptance of them is immaterial, and the law of God is just as absolute as the laws of logic.

Prediction: you're going to go on a rant about how we can't prove the laws of logic/mathematics are absolute, universal, and objective. You do that a lot. We already know that, Seer. That doesn't make it a hole through which you can drive ANY proposition without proof.

It is not a rant, it is a fact. You keep complaining that I can not show that God exists, yet you can not show that the laws of logic are universal or absolute. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I brought it up to show that you are basically arguing "might makes right." IIRC, that is inconsistent with your own moral framework. It is also inconsistent with my own. It may or may not be how other people select their moral positions (I'm sure some do).

No I'm not arguing that might makes right, I'm arguing that God's moral character is just as absolute as the laws of logic. And just as the laws of logic have ultimate authority over you (regardless of what you believe) so does the law of God. Ones personal moral framework makes no difference, just as ones rejection of logical laws makes no difference.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp you are not making sense, the analogy of logical laws completely undermines your claim

That you don't understand the post, Seer, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

Nonsense Carp, the point follows. There are things in this universe that have authority over you whether you agree with them or not, whether the fit your mental or moral framework or not. Your acceptance of them is immaterial, and the law of God is just as absolute as the laws of logic.

Correct. I am subject to the laws of logic and mathematics and physics. No question about it. Never disputed. My opinion makes no difference for these.

It is not a rant, it is a fact. You keep complaining that I can not show that God exists, yet you can not show that the laws of logic are universal or absolute. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yes - it is a fact. Because the laws of logic are the very basis for our reasoning, they cannot be reasoned to logically without engaging in a circular argument. You appear to want to use this fact to open the door to any other proposition and defend that they do not require proof (or even evidence) because we cannot prove the laws of logic. You are free to do that if you wish, Seer. If that's how you arrive at your beliefs (despite the fact that you also claim to accept the laws of logic as absolute/universal/objective truths), so be it. My beliefs are not so shallowly rooted.

No I'm not arguing that might makes right, I'm arguing that God's moral character is just as absolute as the laws of logic. And just as the laws of logic have ultimate authority over you (regardless of what you believe) so does the law of God. Ones personal moral framework makes no difference, just as ones rejection of logical laws makes no difference.

No - you are arguing "might makes right." So far the only argument you have made that "god's moral laws" have authority over me is that he can impose consequences. I responded to this already - and you have continued to ignore the response. I suspect it is because you have no response to it. This is a pattern I find with you. I post your entire response to me and respond to it point by point. You delete the key arguments in my response, and then simply repeat the same tired arguments I have already responded to. I agree with Adrift in one respect: you are tenacious as hell. I disagree with him in another: you have very little skill in actual philosophical argumentation. You largely engage in a form of "debate trolling." I increasingly find it tedious.

[seer]

That you don't understand the post, Seer, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.



Correct. I am subject to the laws of logic and mathematics and physics. No question about it. Never disputed. My opinion makes no difference for these.



Yes - it is a fact. Because the laws of logic are the very basis for our reasoning, they cannot be reasoned to logically without engaging in a circular argument. You appear to want to use this fact to open the door to any other proposition and defend that they do not require proof (or even evidence) because we cannot prove the laws of logic. You are free to do that if you wish, Seer. If that's how you arrive at your beliefs (despite the fact that you also claim to accept the laws of logic as absolute/universal/objective truths), so be it. My beliefs are not so shallowly rooted.



No - you are arguing "might makes right." So far the only argument you have made that "god's moral laws" have authority over me is that he can impose consequences. I responded to this already - and you have continued to ignore the response. I suspect it is because you have no response to it. This is a pattern I find with you. I post your entire response to me and respond to it point by point. You delete the key arguments in my response, and then simply repeat the same tired arguments I have already responded to. I agree with Adrift in one respect: you are tenacious as hell. I disagree with him in another: you have very little skill in actual philosophical argumentation. You largely engage in a form of "debate trolling." I increasingly find it tedious.

1.the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

https://www.google.com/search?source...4dUDCAc&uact=5

So Carp would the law of God have authority over you whether believed in said law or not?

[JimL]

So Carp would the law of God have authority over you whether believed in said law or not?

Only if you are determined, i.e. a robot.

[seer]

Only if you are determined, i.e. a robot.

That makes no sense. By definition that law of God would have authority over you, just as the laws of the land would have authority over you even if you disagreed with them.

[carpedm9587]

So Carp would the law of God have authority over you whether believed in said law or not?

• Give moral orders (to me): no (or at least I am under no requirement to pay attention to them, any more than I would be obligated to pay attention to a moral order from any other agency more powerful than me). I am an independent moral agent; I make my own moral decisions.
• Make moral decisions (for me): no. I am an independent moral agent; I make my own moral decisions.
• Enforce obedience (to his own moral code): yes (by virtue of this being's greater power, just as any society/group/individual with greater power could enforce its moral position by punishing/rewarding me).

[seer]

• Give moral orders (to me): no (or at least I am under no requirement to pay attention to them, any more than I would be obligated to pay attention to a moral order from any other agency more powerful than me). I am an independent moral agent; I make my own moral decisions.
• Make moral decisions (for me): no. I am an independent moral agent; I make my own moral decisions.
• Enforce obedience (to his own moral code): yes (by virtue of this being's greater power, just as any society/group/individual with greater power could enforce its moral position by punishing/rewarding me).

Then you agree that by the linked definition God's law would have authority over you?

[carpedm9587]

Then you agree that by the linked definition God's law would have authority over you?

No - except in so far as to be able to enforce this being's will by virtue of its greater power (which is no different in kind than a person/group/society with greater power than me punishing/rewarding me). I am an independent moral agent. I make my own moral decisions and derive my own moral framework.

[seer]

No - except in so far as to be able to enforce this being's will by virtue of its greater power (which is no different in kind than a person/group/society with greater power than me punishing/rewarding me). I am an independent moral agent. I make my own moral decisions and derive my own moral framework.

Then you are denying the definition. Weren't you the one arguing that we need to accept common definitions? In any case by definition God's moral law would have authority over you, conforming to your personal moral framework, or not, does not even play into the definition.