Atheism And Moral Progress

[seer]

Again - nothing new - so I'll leave the last word to you.

As if what you said to Jim was anything new, as if Jim didn't already know that or me? No, you just saw an opportunity to slam my beliefs.

[carpedm9587]

As if what you said to Jim was anything new, as if Jim didn't already know that or me? No, you just saw an opportunity to slam my beliefs.

OK - so this is curious and worth following up since it's new territory. You seemed to agree that my description of your moral beliefs was accurate (and better than any alternative, at that). So if the description is accurate, how is this a slam?

Indeed, it would seem to me that the "slams" are in your response (e.g., "pretend," "cult of death," etc.), not my post. Don't get me wrong, feel free to slam away if you wish. I just find your reaction...interesting...

[Charles]

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?





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

Seer, you have repeatedly avoid answering my questions. Why? I will repeat them: 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?

Kant was not supporting the idea that man universalizes moral truth. It is not an action, something man does. You really have not understood it, if you think so.

Start in the first post and let me hear from you when you get to anything circular This one is important too: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450176. I will be waiting.

And I will be waiting for your answers to my questions as well. A very important thing for you to understand is that your attack is based on the misunderstood idea that no one can be right or wrong if different ideas exist. I have not seen you able to defend that conclusion. Your reluctance to answer my questions give me the idea that you simply cannot.

[seer]

Seer, you have repeatedly avoid answering my questions. Why? I will repeat them: 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?

No Charles, since I am a Christian I believe in universal moral truths, I'm just not sure how the non-believer gets there. Morality is about interaction between rational beings, no rational beings no morality. That is not like the laws of nature, even if we disagree on said laws, those laws would exist even if no sentient beings existed. Right from the get go we have a major difference. Ethics depend completely on there being rational actors. The laws of nature do not.

Kant was not supporting the idea that man universalizes moral truth. It is not an action, something man does. You really have not understood it, if you think so.

No, he ties what is good, or not, to that which can be universalized or not.

Start in the first post and let me hear from you when you get to anything circular. I will be waiting. And I will be waiting for your answers to my questions as well. A very important thing for you to understand is that your attack is based on the misunderstood idea that no one can be right or wrong if different ideas exist. I have not seen you able to defend that conclusion. Your reluctance to answer my questions give me the idea that you simply cannot.

Charles, I'm not going through 45 pages of the old thread you started, I went though about ten last night - and no where did I see you articulate an argument for objective morality. You mostly attacked my position. So simply make your case - on a specific behavior like rape. And I'm willing to bet that it will eventually end up in a circle. And the fact that you won't tells me you already know that.

[seer]

OK - so this is curious and worth following up since it's new territory. You seemed to agree that my description of your moral beliefs was accurate (and better than any alternative, at that). So if the description is accurate, how is this a slam?

Indeed, it would seem to me that the "slams" are in your response (e.g., "pretend," "cult of death," etc.), not my post. Don't get me wrong, feel free to slam away if you wish. I just find your reaction...interesting...

So when you say that my mind can't be changed, do you see that as a moral virtue or moral shortcoming? Be honest.

[Charles]

No Charles, since I am a Christian I believe in universal moral truths, I'm just not sure how the non-believer gets there. Morality is about interaction between rational beings, no rational beings no morality. That is not like the laws of nature, even if we disagree on said laws, those laws would exist even if no sentient beings existed. Right from the get go we have a major difference. Ethics depend completely on there being rational actors. The laws of nature do not.



No, he ties what is good, or not, to that which can be universalized or not.



Charles, I'm not going through 45 pages of the old thread you started, I went though about ten last night - and no where did I see you articulate an argument for objective morality. You mostly attacked my position. So simply make your case - on a specific behavior like rape. And I'm willing to bet that it will eventually end up in a circle. And the fact that you won't tells me you already know that.

So you conclude beforehand that morality is dependent on rational beings. I have not seen you make the case why. This is what I have been asking you over and over. You seemingly can only make a statement.

Seer, I am not going to repeat 45 pages. If I remember correctly yesterday all you did to provide evidence for the existence of God was to provide a list of 20 old arguments. Nothing more than that? And, now seemingly, you expect me to repeat myself or to put very long lines of reasoning into a simple syllogism?

If see that you are unable to show how my reasoning is circular. Great. And you have admitted your own line of reasoning is. Great. I think that is enough for me unless you want to continue a serious debate and not ask me to repeat 45 pages or go for simplifications.

[seer]

So you conclude beforehand that morality is dependent on rational beings. I have not seen you make the case why. This is what I have been asking you over and over. You seemingly can only make a statement.

No Charles, how can moral truths exist without rational beings since morality is ABOUT interaction between sentient beings? In other words what ELSE would morality be dependent on apart from rational beings?

Seer, I am not going to repeat 45 pages. If I remember correctly yesterday all you did to provide evidence for the existence of God was to provide a list of 20 old arguments. Nothing more than that? And, now seemingly, you expect me to repeat myself or to put very long lines of reasoning into a simple syllogism?

Just as I thought, you really can't do it and we both know it. At least Jim B. has attempted a defense in this thread.

If see that you are unable to show how my reasoning is circular. Great. And you have admitted your own line of reasoning is. Great. I think that is enough for me unless you want to continue a serious debate and not ask me to repeat 45 pages or go for simplifications.

Serious debate? I will show that any moral wrong or right you present ends up in a circular justification. That is why you won't make a case. All this nonsense about simplification is just hand-waving on your part.

[carpedm9587]

So when you say that my mind can't be changed, do you see that as a moral virtue or moral shortcoming? Be honest.

Actually - what I said was that all three approaches to convincing you were problematic and unlikely to succeed, for reasons that should be obvious. I also noted (as an ETA) that there is change happening in the Christian community, so "perhaps there is more chance of change than I am seeing." I also noted that the majority of the Christian moral framework aligns with what most of us consider to be moral - so celebrating the commonalities is perhaps a better choice.

Generically, I will find that anyone who's moral position deviates from my own to suffer from moral shortcomings, and those that agree with me to be morally virtuous. That is basically what everyone does - including yourself.

So, again, I'm trying to see how anything I said qualifies as a "slam," and how it is your somewhat vitriolic response does NOT qualify as a "slam."

[seer]

Actually - what I said was that all three approaches to convincing you were problematic and unlikely to succeed, for reasons that should be obvious. I also noted (as an ETA) that there is change happening in the Christian community, so "perhaps there is more chance of change than I am seeing." I also noted that the majority of the Christian moral framework aligns with what most of us consider to be moral - so celebrating the commonalities is perhaps a better choice.

Generically, I will find that anyone who's moral position deviates from my own to suffer from moral shortcomings, and those that agree with me to be morally virtuous. That is basically what everyone does - including yourself.

So, again, I'm trying to see how anything I said qualifies as a "slam," and how it is your somewhat vitriolic response does NOT qualify as a "slam."

I will ask again Carp, do you see the fact that my mind can't be changed as a moral virtue or moral shortcoming? And I'm not speaking of what we agree on morally, or not. But the fact that my mind can't be changed.

[Charles]

No Charles, how can moral truths exist without rational beings since morality is ABOUT interaction between sentient beings? In other words what ELSE would morality be dependent on apart from rational beings?



Just as I thought, you really can't do it and we both know it. At least Jim B. has attempted a defense in this thread.



Serious debate? I will show that any moral wrong or right you present ends up in a circular justification. That is why you won't make a case. All this nonsense about simplification is just hand-waving on your part.

Again. What do you base your preconception on? It seems rather question begging. Are you really unable to see that, seer.

I can do it, and I have done it. Can you show where and why the reasoning is circular?

Feel free to present a simple syllogism proving your view to be right and I promise I will show you why it does not work. You believe in simplifications I don't and thus i have written far more about my view than you did.

[carpedm9587]

I will ask again Carp, do you see the fact that my mind can't be changed as a moral virtue or moral shortcoming? And I'm not speaking of what we agree on morally, or not. But the fact that my mind can't be changed.

So, first, I will respond again that at no point did I say "Seer's mind can't be changed," so you are ignoring both my original post and my response (again).

Second, if you are now telling me that it is indeed a fact that your mind cannot be changed, I consider that a moral shortcoming. Without the openness to examine our moral positions and re-evaluate them in the light of new information, new understandings, and rational arguments, then the individual has trapped themselves into holding the positions they currently hold permanently. Since none of us is perfect, it follows that all of us hold moral positions that are flawed in some respect. The closed-mind person has committed to holding those flawed positions until death. I would consider that a moral shortcoming.

But then again, I would also consider any moral position that does not align with mine to be a "moral shortcoming." Even if I HAD accused you of not being capable of change, how would pointing out a moral shortcoming be considered a "slam?" Are we to stay silent when confronted with a position we find morally compromised? Is that what you are suggesting?

I won't encourage you to "be honest," because I actually assume those who talk with me are posting their honest opinions/beliefs/thoughts. The fact that you felt a need to add that encouragement says a great deal about how you view some of the people with whom you discuss issues.

[seer]

So, first, I will respond again that at no point did I say "Seer's mind can't be changed," so you are ignoring both my original post and my response (again).

What did you mean by this: You're pounding your head against a wall, Jim.

Second, if you are now telling me that it is indeed a fact that your mind cannot be changed, I consider that a moral shortcoming. Without the openness to examine our moral positions and re-evaluate them in the light of new information, new understandings, and rational arguments, then the individual has trapped themselves into holding the positions they currently hold permanently. Since none of us is perfect, it follows that all of us hold moral positions that are flawed in some respect. The closed-mind person has committed to holding those flawed positions until death. I would consider that a moral shortcoming.

That is my point with relativism Carp, there is nothing new in the objective sense. There is no moral progress only moral change. There are no flawed positions, how could there be, according to whom?

[carpedm9587]

What did you mean by this: You're pounding your head against a wall, Jim.

It is explained in the rest of the paragraph:

As a consequence, you have only three avenues that I can see to influence Seer's morality: convince him that this god does not exist, convince him that the bible is not the documented moral demands of this being, or convince him that his interpretation of the bible is not the correct one. Each of these is problematic and unlikely to succeed.

"Unlikely to succeed" is not the same as "impossible to succeed." The latter implies complete close-mindedness. The former implies at last some possibility of success, however slight it might be. The closing paragraph returns to this theme of "success may be possible."

I note you also ignore the rest of the post and did not respond to the question asked. This is another pattern you have. You want answers to questions you ask (at least it appears so based on the doggedness with which you continually repeat them), but see no problem with simply jumping over questions that are asked in return (based on the frequency with which you use this tactic).

I further note you take no ownership of your own response...or even acknowledge the slam it represents. As I said - it's no skin off my nose. It's simply a bit inconsistent, IMO.

That is my point with relativism Carp, there is nothing new in the objective sense. There is no moral progress only moral change. There are no flawed positions, how could there be, according to whom?

First, I think you are using "relativism" when you mean "subjectivism." Second, see my responses to Jim. There is no point in repeating all of that here. History suggests you will most likely ignore the response and then re-ask the same question.

ETA: On reflection, this exchange shows every sign of going down the same rat hole all previous exchanges have gone, so I'm going to withdraw and you can have the last word. If you ask me a question I have not already answered, I may respond.

[seer]

Again. What do you base your preconception on? It seems rather question begging. Are you really unable to see that, seer.

Charles, we know two thing about morality - it is about interpersonal relationships, and it takes rational beings (minds) to articulate them. If you are suggesting that morals exist apart from rational minds it is on you to tell us how that is possible.

I can do it, and I have done it. Can you show where and why the reasoning is circular?

Then please link the post where you did! And don't tell us to wade through 45 pages!

[seer]

It is explained in the rest of the paragraph:

As a consequence, you have only three avenues that I can see to influence Seer's morality: convince him that this god does not exist, convince him that the bible is not the documented moral demands of this being, or convince him that his interpretation of the bible is not the correct one. Each of these is problematic and unlikely to succeed.

"Unlikely to succeed" is not the same as "impossible to succeed." The latter implies complete close-mindedness. The former implies at last some possibility of success, however slight it might be. The closing paragraph returns to this theme of "success may be possible."

I note you also ignore the rest of the post and did not respond to the question asked. This is another pattern you have. You want answers to questions you ask (at least it appears so based on the doggedness with which you continually repeat them), but see no problem with simply jumping over questions that are asked in return (based on the frequency with which you use this tactic).

I further note you take no ownership of your own response...or even acknowledge the slam it represents. As I said - it's no skin off my nose. It's simply a bit inconsistent, IMO.



First, I think you are using "relativism" when you mean "subjectivism." Second, see my responses to Jim. There is no point in repeating all of that here. History suggests you will most likely ignore the response and then re-ask the same question.

ETA: On reflection, this exchange shows every sign of going down the same rat hole all previous exchanges have gone, so I'm going to withdraw and you can have the last word. If you ask me a question I have not already answered, I may respond.

Sorry Carp when someone says talking to me is like hitting your head against the wall (me being the wall) I see that as slam, not a compliment. I mean why even write that post in the first place? To warn Jim? No, he knows me. Or to catalog my faults as you perceive them?