Jim B., I have to say, I'm really loving your points about the implicit nature of language and truth-telling. I feel I've seen this argument before, but it's nice to get a refresher. I don't think that carpedm quite gets it, but it's been very beneficial for me.
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Atheism And Moral Progress
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostJim B., I have to say, I'm really loving your points about the implicit nature of language and truth-telling. I feel I've seen this argument before, but it's nice to get a refresher. I don't think that carpedm quite gets it, but it's been very beneficial for me.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 carpedm9587 View PostWhat I am aware of, Jim, is that I make these statements, and invite you to give me so much as a single example that will disprove my position, and you have yet to do so. So, again, find one thing that can be described as "good" without identifying a sentient being who is doing the evaluation and the metric being used to assess the thing as good. JUst one - and you will destroy my position. I know of none - hence my position.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 PostShow us one logical truth without identifying a sentient being who is doing the evaluation and assessing said truth.
Prediction: You will again note that we cannot prove fundamental logical principles are absolute, objective, and universal (which I have agreed with multiple times), and by doing so imply that you get a free pass to accept other propositions without that proof.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 PostA thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same way. This reality is true without anyone assessing it to be true - and does not require a metric to establish its truth. It will continue to be true even if all sentience ceases to exist.
Prediction: You will again note that we cannot prove fundamental logical principles are absolute, objective, and universal (which I have agreed with multiple times), and by doing so imply that you get a free pass to accept other propositions without that proof.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 PostThat is the point Carp you are requiring a standard for Jim, that you can not provide for logical absolutes. Logical laws are conceptual, they do not exist apart from minds, they are the products of sentient beings who must do the evaluating.
Your argument is so ridiculous it doesn't merit further discussion. I'll leave the last word to you.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 PostYeah - I know you want to use the fact that we cannot prove logical absolutes as a pass for all other claims. By your argument, no claim should be held to proof because we can't prove logical absolutes, so let's just eliminate all of philosophy and science as pointless.
Your argument is so ridiculous it doesn't merit further discussion. I'll leave the last word to you.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 PostThat is the point Carp you are requiring a standard for Jim, that you can not provide for logical absolutes. Logical laws are conceptual, they do not exist apart from minds, they are the products of sentient beings who must do the evaluating.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostLogic is merely a tool for finding truth based upon existing premises. It cannot establish new premises. Only science can do that. The originator of formal logic, Aristotle, was wrong regarding nearly every argument and conclusion he made about physical science. Logic cannot generate new truths about nature. It can only examine and reformulate the truths contained in existing models, theories and laws.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
-
And you Carp refuse to acknowledge your double standard even though I'm convinced that you see it.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 Adrift View PostIf you're using a Chrome-based browser, use a form recovery extension like Typio Form Recovery. One click and you can restore all of your lost text. There's a similar extension for Firefox as well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostJim - I combined your three posts into this one response. We are also back into a long back/forth, and the original challenge has gone largely ignored. I do not see that you have made any argument that demonstrates an objective basis for specific moral frameworks (i.e., an objectively "morally true" framework we should all be aiming for).
There is nothing about subjective morality that precludes it operating normatively. As previously noted, any individually held moral position that is widely held by the members of a particular group/society becomes normative for that group.
I know you are arguing for some form of link between morality and language, but you have not made the case. You started by redefining what "language" is, asserted that people would laugh at my response (a response that was based on a quick pass through various definitions of the term "language"), ad then continued your assertion that the immorality of lying is based in this linquistic violation. THere is no argument here that I can respond to except to note that redefining your way to a position isn't usually considered all that constructive.
Not that I have ever encountered. I know of no principle in morality that is "absolute."
So now your argument should be accepted because it is "common sense?" It was once "common sense" that the sun revolved around the earth too. As I have previously noted, morality has been described in objective/absolute terms for centuries - perhaps since the dawn of man. That it is rooted in objective/absolute realities is as indoctrinated into people (i.e., cultures, language, norms) as the notion of a god. If an argument could be won by appealing to "common sense," widely held but false views would never be uncovered.
Jim, when someone says "X has value," they are essentially saying, "I find value in X." It is always a statement made from the perspective of a valuer. The concept of a thing having value WITHOUT a valuer is indoctrinated nonsense.
What I am aware of, Jim, is that I make these statements, and invite you to give me so much as a single example that will disprove my position, and you have yet to do so. So, again, find one thing that can be described as "good" without identifying a sentient being who is doing the evaluation and the metric being used to assess the thing as good. JUst one - and you will destroy my position. I know of none - hence my position.
As for reasons and arguments, I've given several now:
1) Subjectivism is in contradiction to the nature of morality, which essentially involves the rational critique of one's own and others' actions.
2) Subjectivism cannot account for moral fallibility
3) Subjectivism cannot account for moral disagreement
4) The "Lying Argument"
5) Others yet to come
First, I am a human being within a natural order and my ability to reason is part of the natural order, so you would have a hard case trying to show that my ability to reason is not a "natural phenomena." Second, at no point did I say Trump's lying causes destructive effects on society and that is the basis for its immorality. The basis for it's immorality can be different for different people based on their valuing and resulting moral framework. For some it is not immoral at all. It is, as you say, "justified." BUt you are correct that an individual will tend to categorize actions that destroy/threaten/diminish something that is highly valued as "immoral" and actions that promote/protect/enhance something that is highly valued as "moral." Your argument that one cannot determine if the categorization causes the harm rather than the act is a very odd one. A categorization is not causal, AFAIK.
It's not "made up" of destructive effects, Jim. It is (in part) the destructive effects of an act on soemthing we value that cause us to classify that act as "immoral." "Immoral" and "moral" are simple classes, like "mammal" and "reptile." The latter uses characteristics of living beings to assign them to categories. The latter uses the effects of actions to classify them into categories.
Jim, I think you are conflating "communication" with "language." Yes, language is not only the symbols we use to express concepts, but also the rules concerning how those symols are assembled, so grammar and syntax are part of language. The rest of your list is not about "language." It's about communication. Language tells us the sentence "Give me a belt" is a correctly constructed English sentence. Context and non-verbal cues can tell me that I want a drink instead of something to hold up my pants instead of needing a good smack in the head. Communication involves language, non-verbal cues, unspoken assumptions, etc.
I know you've said it over and over again - and other than saying it - you've not made an argument or a case for it. I prepeat, there is no link between "truth" and "language." Language exists with or without truth. Language can be used to utter truths OR falsehoods. Language is one tool used by sentient beings to communicate. It is the symbolic tool that can be spoken or written. You have shown no link between "truth" and "language" other than to continually assert it exists, and conflate "language" with "communication."
I'm sorry, Jim - but to borow a line from Seer, "you're not making any sense." My preference would be to say, "I cannot make one whit of sense out of what you are saying." It kay be I am simply not understanding you, but I cannot even begin to fathom what you are trying to argue here.
You are proposing that a being can assemble a symbolic language before it is self-aware? I'm not sure of the relevance of this observation, but it seems to undermine your position that language presumes truth. We see languages in a wide variety of species that take many forms: the dance of the bee, the sounds of the humpback, and so forth. While the humpback may prove to be sentient, I don't think any of us believe the bee is sentient, or capable of moralizing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostJim B., I have to say, I'm really loving your points about the implicit nature of language and truth-telling. I feel I've seen this argument before, but it's nice to get a refresher. I don't think that carpedm quite gets it, but it's been very beneficial for me.
Comment
-
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
606 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment