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 seer View Post
    Charles, you can clear it all up right now, since I'm going by memory: make a non circular argument for why, let's say, rape is wrong. Why it is an objective wrong.




    Many of the listed arguments are classic arguments, and many we have used here on TWeb. You don't find them convincing, we do, and so what? Again please define what you mean by evidence, when you said we had none.





    Of course I am, let's see you define good in a non-circular way. I will be waiting.




    Well since God's moral nature is immutable there is certainty, universality and of course His nature defines what is good. Do you have something better, universal and certain?
    Your best argument seems to be "do you have something better?" while claiming my line of reasoning is circular without any proof at all...

    And I note that you seemingly admit that your line of reasoning is circular and you only have a problem with that if I have something better? If a poster on the net does not have something better, circularity is no longer a problem? Seriously, seer?
    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Charles View Post
      Your best argument seems to be "do you have something better?" while claiming my line of reasoning is circular without any proof at all...

      And I note that you seemingly admit that your line of reasoning is circular and you only have a problem with that if I have something better? If a poster on the net does not have something better, circularity is no longer a problem? Seriously, seer?
      Yes seriously Charles, all moral claims are going to end up being circular to a degree. They are going to, at bottom, depend on what the person or culture find morally acceptable or not. For instance we were discussing Utilitarianism vs Deontological ethics. Both are logically consistent, yet there was no resolution as to which one was correct. In the end it comes down to a matter preference. You preferred Deontology, someone else Utilitarianism, and logical arguments can not answer the question. I asked you simple question back then that you refused to answer, which is a good exercise for the question of universal moral truths:

      If an advanced Alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food, would that be a moral wrong? A universal moral wrong? And why?
      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
        Yes seriously Charles, all moral claims are going to end up being circular to a degree. They are going to, at bottom, depend on what the person or culture find morally acceptable or not. For instance we were discussing Utilitarianism vs Deontological ethics. Both are logically consistent, yet there was no resolution as to which one was correct. In the end it comes down to a matter preference. You preferred Deontology, someone else Utilitarianism, and logical arguments can not answer the question.
        Claiming logical arguments cannot answer the question is no better than anyone claiming they actually can. You are just making a statement, seer. You are not supporting a particular view on ethics like I did. You are not examining the different lines of reasoning like I did. You are seemingly presupposing that because different ideas exist, no definitive answer can be given. I wonder if you think the same about theology?

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        I asked you simple question back then that you refused to answer, which is a good exercise for the question of universal moral truths:

        If an advanced Alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food, would that be a moral wrong? A universal moral wrong? And why?
        Where? And when did I refuse to answer it?
        "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Charles View Post
          Claiming logical arguments cannot answer the question is no better than anyone claiming they actually can. You are just making a statement, seer. You are not supporting a particular view on ethics like I did. You are not examining the different lines of reasoning like I did. You are seemingly presupposing that because different ideas exist, no definitive answer can be given. I wonder if you think the same about theology?
          Moral questions are different, don't you think? Either Jesus is the Son of God or he isn't. The Maoists believed it was a moral good to murder millions of dissidents, you I assume disagree. So what makes you right and them wrong? Besides personal preference?

          Where? And when did I refuse to answer it?
          Post #44, then you jumped out of the debate, in post #45:

          http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...r-Ethics/page5

          So why not answer it now: If an advanced Alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food, would that be a moral wrong? A universal moral wrong? And why?
          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
            Moral questions are different, don't you think? Either Jesus is the Son of God or he isn't. The Maoists believed it was a moral good to murder millions of dissidents, you I assume disagree. So what makes you right and them wrong? Besides personal preference?
            And Einstein and Bohr disagreed on quantum mechanics so what made one of them right and the other wrong? Personal preference? And if not, show me logically and scientifically who was right and who was wrong? And if you can't it seems to follow based on your own logic that it is only personal preference. You would not want to apply your logic for science, I suppose?

            So, disagreements exist? Why does that make a difference with regard to ethics but not with regard to science? The mere fact that difference of opinion exists is not proof that there are no facts and no objective truth on the matter. Even if it is very hard to prove what is right or wrong, it does not follow that right and wrong do not exist. It would be very hard for Bohr to prove himself right to Einstein and the other way around. I would be very reluctant to conclude that there is no truth on the matters on which they disagreed only based on the fact that they disagreed and that people will continue to disagree as science proceeds on the matter.

            It seems you rather presuppose that there is no truth to be found than actually show it. Yes, different opinions exist. We all knew that. How do you know they are all wrong or that none of them are in accordance with the truth? Is difference of opinion your only proof?

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Post #44, then you jumped out of the debate, in post #45:

            http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...r-Ethics/page5
            Nope. I started a new thread. Feel free to show the claimed circularity in my arguments: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            So why not answer it now: If an advanced Alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food, would that be a moral wrong? A universal moral wrong? And why?
            That would depend on a number of premises that are not given in the question. Are they able to reason, communicate, think, show love and affection and a lot of other relevant factors? Don't go for the simple ideas, seer. Don't go for the fast conclusions.

            It would be like if I asked you:

            And if it turned out that your God was actually a creation made by another God who was in favour of homosexual activities would you then support and join the LGTB? Would condemning homosexuals then be a universal moral wrong? And why?

            I hope you get the point, seer?
            "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Charles View Post
              And Einstein and Bohr disagreed on quantum mechanics so what made one of them right and the other wrong? Personal preference? And if not, show me logically and scientifically who was right and who was wrong? And if you can't it seems to follow based on your own logic that it is only personal preference. You would not want to apply your logic for science, I suppose?

              So, disagreements exist? Why does that make a difference with regard to ethics but not with regard to science? The mere fact that difference of opinion exists is not proof that there are no facts and no objective truth on the matter. Even if it is very hard to prove what is right or wrong, it does not follow that right and wrong do not exist. It would be very hard for Bohr to prove himself right to Einstein and the other way around. I would be very reluctant to conclude that there is no truth on the matters on which they disagreed only based on the fact that they disagreed and that people will continue to disagree as science proceeds on the matter.

              It seems you rather presuppose that there is no truth to be found than actually show it. Yes, different opinions exist. We all knew that. How do you know they are all wrong or that none of them are in accordance with the truth? Is difference of opinion your only proof?
              So what is your point? Do you think moral questions are like physical questions? And Charles, we both agree with Deontological ethics, except I do it through Divine Command theory. I believe God universalizes moral truths and duties and you believe man does. I can see logically how God can since He is universal, I don't see how man does.



              Nope. I started a new thread. Feel free to show the claimed circularity in my arguments: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics
              Like I said I am working from memory, but you could settle all this now. Why won't you? See below.



              That would depend on a number of premises that are not given in the question. Are they able to reason, communicate, think, show love and affection and a lot of other relevant factors? Don't go for the simple ideas, seer. Don't go for the fast conclusions.

              It would be like if I asked you:

              And if it turned out that your God was actually a creation made by another God who was in favour of homosexual activities would you then support and join the LGTB? Would condemning homosexuals then be a universal moral wrong? And why?

              I hope you get the point, seer?
              See you are hand waving again. Our advanced Alien race is rational and intelligent and can communicate, but as far as love and affection that is immaterial as to weather harvesting us for food is immoral or not. The act is either universally wrong or it isn't. A universal wrong would not depend on the Alien's abilities, or lack thereof. So here is your opportunity to make a non-circular argument for why eating us is morally wrong.
              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
                I have been through this before with you Tass, there are good arguments for the existence of God, but they are not evidence in the scientific sense, and of course you will reject the following, but for those who are more open minded I will link these again:
                Wow. Pascal's Wager? Really?

                Pascal's Wager says nothing about the existence of god, Seer. All it does is suggest that believing in a god has better consequential outcomes than not believing in a god. And it requires someone to accept "eternal damnation" as a premise in order for the argument to work. It's a "hedging your bets" argument.

                The rest of these have all likewise been explored ad infinitum, and they are all lacking and fail to demonstrate what they claim. But there are certainly a lot of people who still cling to them, which is (of course) their right.
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-03-2019, 11:30 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 carpedm9587 View Post
                  Wow. Pascal's Wager? Really?

                  Pascal's Wager says nothing about the existence of god, Seer. All it does is suggest that believing in a god has better consequential outcomes than not believing in a god. And it requires someone to accept "eternal damnation" as a premise in order for the argument to work. It's a "hedging your bets" argument.

                  The rest of these have all likewise been explored ad infinitum, and they are all lacking and fail to demonstrate what they claim. But there are certainly a lot of people who still cling to them, which is (of course) their right.
                  You notice Carp, it was the last of the arguments. But I think the cumulative effect of them all is compelling. You don't and won't. So...
                  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
                    You notice Carp, it was the last of the arguments. But I think the cumulative effect of them all is compelling. You don't and won't. So...
                    You're right - I don't. Each and every one of them is fatally flawed, when you look at them closely. 20 fatally flawed arguments don't a compelling case make.
                    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
                      You're right - I don't. Each and every one of them is fatally flawed, when you look at them closely. 20 fatally flawed arguments don't a compelling case make.
                      I agree that Pascal's Wager isn't that compelling, but I don't see how the others are fatally flawed. For instance the argument from design:

                      1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
                      2.Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
                      3.Not chance.
                      4.Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
                      5.Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
                      C.Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.
                      Premise three would be the major sticking point, so Peter answers:

                      It is of course the third premise that is crucial. Ultimately, nonbelievers tell us, it is indeed by chance and not by any design that the universe of our experience exists the way it does. It just happens to have this order, and the burden of proof is on believers to demonstrate why this could not be so by chance alone.

                      But this seems a bit backward. It is surely up to nonbelievers to produce a credible alternative to design. And "chance" is simply not credible. For we can understand chance only against a background of order. To say that something happened "by chance" is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected, or that it did turn out in a way we would not have expected. But expectation is impossible without order. If you take away order and speak of chance alone as a kind of ultimate source, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of chance at all. Instead of thinking of chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order-overwhelmingly intricate and ubiquitous order-against a random and purposeless background of chance. Frankly, that is incredible. Therefore it is eminently reasonable to affirm the third premise, not chance, and therefore to affirm the conclusion, that this universe is the product of intelligent design.
                      I don't see how this is fatally flawed, and it does not seem unreasonable to me.
                      Last edited by seer; 09-03-2019, 12:29 PM.
                      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
                        So what is your point? Do you think moral questions are like physical questions? And Charles, we both agree with Deontological ethics, except I do it through Divine Command theory. I believe God universalizes moral truths and duties and you believe man does. I can see logically how God can since He is universal, I don't see how man does.
                        I think my point was pretty clear. You seem to argue that because humans disagree on ethics, ethics is nothing but a subjective matter. You would probably not conclude the same about science though humans disagree on this area as well. So, what exactly is it that allows you to conclude based on the fact that humans disagree on the topic that there could not be an objective truth?

                        I don't believe man universalizes moral truths. Based on that statement I wonder if you even understand what objective moral standards are. They would of course exist independently on what the particular individual would think about them.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Like I said I am working from memory, but you could settle all this now. Why won't you? See below.

                        See you are hand waving again. Our advanced Alien race is rational and intelligent and can communicate, but as far as love and affection that is immaterial as to weather harvesting us for food is immoral or not. The act is either universally wrong or it isn't. A universal wrong would not depend on the Alien's abilities, or lack thereof. So here is your opportunity to make a non-circular argument for why eating us is morally wrong.
                        You claimed my reasoning was circular. You are yet to prove it. I give you a direct link. Support your statement, seer, or admit that it is just a statement. If you read the post I pointed to, you would understand why you have not yet provided the details needed to answer the question. What you have provided is way to little for serious debate. And what do you even base the statement that "A universal wrong would not depend on the Alien's abilities, or lack thereof" on? You must have a very limited perspective on ethics if you think so.

                        I also note that you did not answer my question though you think it is hugely important that I answer your question which comes preloaded with a lack of details that you can twist and turn afterwards.

                        I have given you a much more detailed view on what I think than you ever gave of yours. Read it and point to the circular parts in it if you can. I have no interest in repeating myself or giving less detailed versions of what I already wrote.
                        "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                          I think my point was pretty clear. You seem to argue that because humans disagree on ethics, ethics is nothing but a subjective matter. You would probably not conclude the same about science though humans disagree on this area as well. So, what exactly is it that allows you to conclude based on the fact that humans disagree on the topic that there could not be an objective truth?

                          I don't believe man universalizes moral truths. Based on that statement I wonder if you even understand what objective moral standards are. They would of course exist independently on what the particular individual would think about them.
                          I just remember us talking about Kant, and about universalizing moral truths. I thought that you were supporting that back then. If not that, then what exactly are you saying?



                          You claimed my reasoning was circular. You are yet to prove it. I give you a direct link. Support your statement, seer, or admit that it is just a statement. If you read the post I pointed to, you would understand why you have not yet provided the details needed to answer the question. What you have provided is way to little for serious debate. And what do you even base the statement that "A universal wrong would not depend on the Alien's abilities, or lack thereof" on? You must have a very limited perspective on ethics if you think so.

                          I also note that you did not answer my question though you think it is hugely important that I answer your question which comes preloaded with a lack of details that you can twist and turn afterwards.

                          I have given you a much more detailed view on what I think than you ever gave of yours. Read it and point to the circular parts in it if you can. I have no interest in repeating myself or giving less detailed versions of what I already wrote.
                          No Charles, I don't remember exactly what you said or didn't say, but I have yet to see a moral argument that doesn't eventually end up in a circle. How could it not? If you think you could present one that doesn't end up in a circle just offer a syllogism showing otherwise.

                          For instance where in this thread of yours did you make a case for objective moral truths, can you link the relevant post:

                          http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics
                          Last edited by seer; 09-03-2019, 01:30 PM.
                          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
                            I just remember us talking about Kant, and about universalizing moral truths. I thought that you were supporting that back then. If not that, then what exactly are you saying?
                            That does not answer any of my questions, seer. Nor does it explain why you would think anyone who believes in objective moral standards would think man universalizes moral truth.

                            For what I was saying please read this: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            No Charles, I don't remember exactly what you said or didn't say, but I have yet to see a moral argument that doesn't eventually end up in a circle. How could it not? If you think you could present one that doesn't end up in a circle just offer a syllogism showing otherwise.
                            If you think one syllogism would be enough you have a very limited understanding of syllogisms and ethichs. Please read what I wrote back then (see above) if you want to have a detailed view and feel free to find the circular arguments that you claim must be in there. I will be waiting. You made the statement but seemingly cannot support it.
                            "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                              That does not answer any of my questions, seer. Nor does it explain why you would think anyone who believes in objective moral standards would think man universalizes moral truth.

                              For what I was saying please read this: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics
                              Weren't you arguing For Kant's position here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...f-ethics/page3

                              And doesn't Kant's position depend on universalizing moral truths?


                              If you think one syllogism would be enough you have a very limited understanding of syllogisms and ethichs. Please read what I wrote back then (see above) if you want to have a detailed view and feel free to find the circular arguments that you claim must be in there. I will be waiting. You made the statement but seemingly cannot support it.
                              Then show me which post EXACTLY made a case for objective moral truths, because you seem to be all over the map. Then we can see if it is circular or not.
                              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 Post
                                I have previously explained both. Moral disagreement in my previous post. Moral fallibility in this one.
                                You haven't explained them adequately at all. This is because I don't believe you understand them. You say that we disagree over "subjectively arrived at moral principles," but on subjectivism this makes little sense. You and I can't be referring to the same moral principle in order to disagree over it. Once again, I am referring to my subjectivity and you are referring to yours. They might tangentially remotely relate to each other but not enough to qualify as a moral disagreement. There are less grounds for a disagreement here than there are in aesthetic matters. At least there, we have a physical object, a painting, a pizza, etc. We have color space and art history and so forth. But on subjectivism, the subject matter just IS the very thing that cannot exist between us. It can only exist as my private experience and as yours. This is not "begging the question": I did not assume that subjectivism entailed this characterisitic. I discovered it on inspection. For all I know, objectivism is not the only moral theory that allows for moral disagreement. In fact, there's nothing about other theories that entails this feature.

                                As far as moral fallibility, you haven't answered that charge at all. Subjectivism makes the claim that moral truth just is constituted by a person's subjective moral beliefs and desires. That is an extraordinarily strong claim, far stronger than aesthetics makes. If it's true, how can I ever be wrong? If my moral beliefs change, I'm faced with a dilemma: I have to say either that I was wrong in the past, I am wrong now, that I am right at both times because the moral truth has changed or that there's something wrong with the moral theory. To say I am right all the time seems odd; the idea that moral truths are changing every time I change my moral opinion seems very unlikely. Moral fallibility is a major problem for the subjectivist because it seems to be endemic to moral thought. The subjectivist can respond by saying that fallibility is itself a mistake and "should" be dispensed with, or s/he can say that the subjectivist can make mistakes in logic reason or observation, but this admission then undermines the whole subjectivist thesis. It strongly suggest that there are criteria that a person's subjective responses need to be subjected to before they are epistemically accepted as trustworthy even by the person him or herself. Then how is this subjectivism?




                                So it's not an argument ad populum - but it is an argument ad populum? In any event, we're on another sidetrack. I have never suggested that moral disagreement is not part of the moral world. The disagreement simply arises subjectively and is reconciled (if it can be) subjectively. YOU seem to want to only accept "moral disagreement" if it falls along "objective" lines, which essentially has you begging the question.
                                Analytic properties of a concept. I didn't say it has to fall along objective lines. See above.



                                And I have repeatedly shown there CAN be moral disagreement - but it is disagreement over subjectively arrived at moral principles.
                                There CAN be aesthetic disagreement - but it is disagreement over subjectively arrived at aesthetic principles.



                                I will accept that clarification. But it does your argument no good to ignore the responses concerning moral disagreement.
                                You only think I'm ignoring your responses. I'm reporting on my subjective responses to your responses.



                                There is no "ought" to what we cherish/value. You are, again, assuming your conclusion. What we cherish/value is arrived at via a variety of sources. Each of us wishes that everyone valued/cherished as we do, because it would increase the probability that what we value/cherish would be further protected by the actions of the groups/societies of which we are members. You are adding "ought" where it cannot be shown to exist.
                                No, you misunderstand again. When you get confused, you scramble to your default charge of "begging the question." I am trying to argue TO an ought. YOU are the one who keeps assuming there is no ought, there CAN BE NO ought. I said "That doesn't establish..." Saying that your argument doesn't establish the lack of an ought doesn't mean it establishes an ought. God, I'm really getting weary of this. That's why I wanted to shift gears or quit.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                353 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