Originally posted by seer
View Post
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThere is no objectively true fact in any moral issue - but that is more "green is not red" argumentation. And the absence of any objectively true moral statements does not preclude agreement. It simply means agreement is not guaranteed. But then again, no so-called objective moral framework has ever been able to guaranty agreement either, so I don't know why that would be an objection.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 PostBy the criteria of your present/current moral framework.
? I'd have to be able to step back and assess my shifting framework in terms of something other than itself in order to avoid an infinite recursion.
They are the basis for our (subjective) moral assessments.
We typically find our moral framework needs to be adjusted if a) the things we value that underlie our moral frameworks shift, or b) we discover that we have made an error in reasoning from what we value to a moral position, accepting as "moral" something that is actually a threat to what we value.
If we have truly decided that our moral framework needs to adjust, then our moral framework will shift. That is not the same as not following a moral framework we have not determined needs to shift, but that we simply have failed to live up to.
Yes, we have been over this - and I think I've been clear that your argument here reduces to "it can't be subjective because then it's not objective." I told you this will happen fairly regularly. Yes - there is no objective basis against which both you and I can assess our subjective moral frameworks. I assess you against mine, and you assess me against yours. If our underlying valuing is misaligned, then the resolution to the moral disagreement can only be achieved by aligning that valuing - and there is no assurance that this will happen. If we our underlying valuing is already aligned, then we should be able to argue from that valuing to the moral conclusions and find the point of disconnect. It is more likely we will align under those circumstances - but there is no guarantee that we will. There is no objective basis for determining "who is right."
We know this. That is intrinsic to the definition of "subjective." So you are basically arguing "it can't be subjective because then it's not objective." Seer does not get this, but perhaps you will. This is not an argument. It is a restatement of the definitions of subjective and objective. What you are doing (to return to colors) is to say "that car can't be green because then it's not red." We already know that a green car is not red. This is not telling us anything. You are trying to claim that the car HAS to be green, but the only argument you have is "but if it's green, it's not red!" See the problem?
As far as the "moral disagreement" objection", you actually make my point without realizing it. About a given moral issue, our 'values' may align or misalign, but in either case, what you don't seem to understand is that we are not discussing the moral issue itself but our own subjective reaction to it. If our values align that's just a happy accident but that alignment is not about the issue but about our reactions to that issue. If they misalign, we are disagreeing over our clashing subjectivities, our clashing tastes about human actions.
Again - repeating this claim over and over again does not make it true. Successful communication and social cohesion carry with them an implicit commitment to truth. Language is just language. It's like saying "a hammer carries with it an implicit commitment to hit things." No - it doesn't. Like language, the hammer is just a tool. "Using a hammer to fasten two things with a nail" carries with it the implicit commitment to hit something. You are conflating language and communication.
Yes - because the scientist's purpose is to discover the truth about reality, and then communicate that to the rest of the species. Without that commitment to truth, that process of discovery and the successful communication of it cannot happen. Language is simply the tool used to make that communication.
I agree that (hopefully) most people would come to those moral conclusions. But we disagree on why. I believe we agree on these moral principles because our shared experience of humanity, history, society, religion, experience, family, etc. result in us having highly aligned valuing. Since morality springs from what we value, there is no surprise that we have highly aligned moral frameworks. But we also have differences and the degree to which we are different can vary from "very little" to "a great deal," and it is from these differences that the disconnects in our moral frameworks arise.
Umm...no. "Lying" is essentially the intentional misalignment of statement/claim from reality. "Truth" is the intentional alignment of statement/claim to reality. Neither definition depends on the other, or presupposes the other, and the two definitions are simply the opposite of one another (alignment/misalignment). If something can be aligned, then it can also be misaligned, and vice versa. What you are saying is the equivalent of "left is inconceivable apart from right, but whereas the opposite is not." I don't see ANY basis for accepting that claim.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWhat makes you think the individual has a 'cohesive moral framework'? You're maybe confusing descriptive ethics with normative ethics. At the descriptive level, there are probably very few 'cohesive moral frameworks,' either at the individual or the societal level but a hodgepodge of various influences.
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post"Truth" is a property of some sentences, like beliefs, assertions, etc. Sentences are a part of a 'human language.' A 'human language' is only one type of 'communication.' Ants, bees, and bacteria communicate but they do not communicate in sentences; thus they do not communicate via the 'truth.'
As for "communicate via the truth," that is a very odd sentence. I communicate via language. I communicate via gestures. I communicate via facial expressions and so-called "body language." I don't communicate via truth." What I communicate, by any of those means, is either true or untrue, depending on its alignment with reality.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWould you say that there are any things that are good in themselves and not merely good for what other good things they can give you?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI would say that 'pleasure', all things being equal, is a good-in-itself. This doesn't mean that pleasure is always or necessarily an instrumentally good thing, but an intrinsically good thing. Taking heroin may give me pleasure (an intrinsic good) but leads to bad stuff (an instrumental evil).
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNo. I don't think so. We don't see morality in high-level sentience. We see morality we rationality and language. We see 'pre-moral sentiments' in other higher species like dolphins and bonobos.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThere you go again. More question-begging with no evidence at all to support it.
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post"Interestingly" as you note, the two phenomena differ crucially. How to explain this and other crucial differences? If it were just a residual effect of religion, as I suspect you would posit, why wouldn't religion have left a similar impact on law? Hmmm....'tis a poser.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAre you familiar with the philosophy of math and logic?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostFrom what tiny bit I know about it, it's not at all clear that they are "believed to be universal, absolute, etc..."
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAnd that's NOT what I'm claiming moral principles to be anyway, so you're creating a strawman.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThe analogy to math and logic would be that both they and morality would be true irrespective of individual choice or preference.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNot quite sure what you're driving at here.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNo, you're not getting it. The experience of color is 'subjective,' but the assessment of color, as in "that traffic light is red" is fixed by physics and by physiology (several billion years of evolution). Even though the process is happening inside my retina/brain, it's not 'subjective' the way YOU are using that word, ie it is NOT my choice that I am seeing that traffic light as that sensation of 'red.'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 seer View PostI think the point is that would make morality trivial.
And I note that is a subjective assessment on your part!
Originally posted by seer View PostWe would be arguing with each other over personal preferences, with no basis, not even logic, for judging between the two.
Not to mention that you are back to arguing "green is not red," which is (once again) not an argument. We already know there is no objective basis for moral alignment when morality is subjective. I have acknowledged that multiple times - and all you can do is continue to assert "this is a bad thing" with no argument other than "subjective stuff has no objective basis."
When you have an actual argument - let me know.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 PostMorality IS about preference. So is legality, and no one seems to object to that.
Not to mention that you are back to arguing "green is not red," which is (once again) not an argument. We already know there is no objective basis for moral alignment when morality is subjective. I have acknowledged that multiple times - and all you can do is continue to assert "this is a bad thing" with no argument other than "subjective stuff has no objective basis."
When you have an actual argument - let me know.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 PostNo Tass, you brought up the deductive argument thing. An argument you can not use to support the scientific method,your view of reality, or universal logical absolutes. Yet you believe all these things without deductive justification, yet you required that of me. A clear double standard
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell I'm glad you admit that there is no rational way (i.e. logical) way to judge between moral preferences.
What I HAVE admitted is that there is no objectively true basis for making a judgement between moral preferences. But then we all know what, since what is subjective is not objective - so we're back to more "green is not red" on your part.Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-21-2019, 06:32 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
-
No Tass, you brought up the deductive thing as IF it was a deficit on my part because I couldn't prove God to make a deductive case for moral absolutes. But so what? You (we) believe a lot of things that can't be proven, deductively or otherwise.
And all science is based on assumptions, and has to be. The uniformity of nature, logical absolutes, a physical universe exists that operates independently of our perceptions, the universe operates according to certain laws which are knowable, events have natural causes which can be explained by natural laws, the laws of nature are constant throughout space and time, etc....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 PostNo - I didn't admit that, despite the many times you have tried to put that language in my mouth. It's an interesting, if somewhat cheap, debating trick that you seem to like to return to.
What I HAVE admitted is that there is no objectively true basis for making a judgement between moral preferences. But then we all know what, since what is subjective is not objective - so we're back to more "green is not red" on your part.Last edited by seer; 08-21-2019, 06:52 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 PostWell no Carp, you never demonstrated how logic can or does decide between competing moral views (especially if each opposing view is deductively sound).
You have the same problems in your so-called "objective morality" world, which is why I have repeatedly said all existing moral agents are subjective moralists, even the ones that claim to be objective moralists. It's roughly equivalent to the flat-earthers. You can "believe" all you wish that the earth is flat. You cannot escape the reality that it is round or the consequences for your everyday life. Likewise, you can cling to the belief that morality is rooted in an objective/absolute moral framework all you wish - but you cannot escape the reality that morality is actually subjective, with all of the consequences inherent to that reality.
Originally posted by seer View PostSo why you think this is a debating trick is beyond me.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 PostActually - I have - several times. The fact that you continue to ignore it doesn't change that. The key to your misunderstanding is in your parenthetical and the observation that "may not" and "can not" are not equivalent concepts.
You have the same problems in your so-called "objective morality" world, which is why I have repeatedly said all existing moral agents are subjective moralists, even the ones that claim to be objective moralists. It's roughly equivalent to the flat-earthers. You can "believe" all you wish that the earth is flat. You cannot escape the reality that it is round or the consequences for your everyday life. Likewise, you can cling to the belief that morality is rooted in an objective/absolute moral framework all you wish - but you cannot escape the reality that morality is actually subjective, with all of the consequences inherent to that reality.
Because it is a somewhat childish "technique" you return to frequently. I have to assume it is because your goal is to "win" rather than to discuss an issue and arrive at better understanding. The difference between your discussion style and Jim's is pretty evident, and I have to admit that I prefer his approach.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 just false Carp, you were clear that there was no rational way to decide between competing moral views - especially if each opposing view is deductively sound - besides personal preference. Hence separation. If I'm wrong refresh my memory.
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm not sure what you mean by reality?
Originally posted by seer View PostYou agreed in our discussion that moral disagreement does not prove subjectivity.
Originally posted by seer View PostSo what are you pointing to?
2) The subjective nature of valuing
3) The inability of so-called moral realists to articulate any argument concerning the need for, or existence of, any objective/absolute/universal moral principles.
Originally posted by seer View PostYet I have agreed that the law of God would be subjective to Him, yet absolute - immutable, not relative, and objective to humankind (not depending on our opinion).
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd as our moral sense aligns with that law the closer we get to absolute moral truths.
Seer, what you are ACTUALLY doing is attempting to aligning your moral framework to your interpretation of the documented framework(s) of a small group of men who lived 1900-3500 years ago. That is why it is a "follow the herd" moral strategy. Ergo, there will never be a rational basis for you and I to resolve moral conflict, because I do not hold the writings of that small group of men in the same esteem as you do and do not base my moral framework on it. So you and I have nothing left but ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm sure Jim is a nicer, more patient fellow than I.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 have never claimed disagreement "proves" subjectivity. The claim would be manifestly unsupportable.
1) The rooting of each an every moral principle I have ever encountered in the subjective valuing of its proponent.
2) The subjective nature of valuing
3) The inability of so-called moral realists to articulate any argument concerning the need for, or existence of, any objective/absolute/universal moral principles.
First - all of this depends on a god you cannot show to actually exist. Second, the "objective" nature of this god's moral principles is no more or less objective to others than mine is. My moral framework is an objective reality to you and yours is to me. Absolute is the only one of these claims that is a differentiator, and only if you can show a) this god exists, and b) this god is unchanging. You cannot do either. So we are left with unsubstantiated assertions.
Seer, what you are ACTUALLY doing is attempting to aligning your moral framework to your interpretation of the documented framework(s) of a small group of men who lived 1900-3500 years ago. That is why it is a "follow the herd" moral strategy. Ergo, there will never be a rational basis for you and I to resolve moral conflict, because I do not hold the writings of that small group of men in the same esteem as you do and do not base my moral framework on it. So you and I have nothing left but ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.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 PostGood that is what I said.
This would apply to the color blue, it would depend on subjective valuing/understanding. As it would with just about everything else
Originally posted by seer View PostIs there any need for the color blue?
Originally posted by seer View PostBut there certainly could be a very great need for people to believe in moral absolutes. Like moral sanity.
Originally posted by seer View PostThere you go with unsubstantiated assertions!
Originally posted by seer View PostShall we go though all the things you hold to be true based on unsubstantiated assertions?
ETA: Of course, this somewhat depends on your definition of "unsubstantiated." The term generally means "not supported or proven by evidence." While not all of my views/positions can be logically proven, I do not normally hold a position without evidence.
Originally posted by seer View PostTalk about cheap and hypocritical debating tricks...
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat does age have to do with moral truths? Or who articulated them?Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-21-2019, 03:08 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
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