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
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYes, I'm suggesting that the Cosmos does not exist in space-time, but that space-times exists in the Cosmos.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 JimL View PostNo one argues that pain is immoral, but to cause pain and suffering would be, and the ultimate cause of pain and suffering, if for the sake of argument we assume he exists, would be god.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostNo, the purpose behind pain and suffering can be good, like a surgeon. Causing pain is not necessarily immoral.
Blessings,
Lee
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostJim, I don't believe in objective morality apart from God, but even with God I generally don't call his law objective, but universal and authoritative. My question to you; if objective morality exists what authority does it have over us? What happens if we violate it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostNo, the purpose behind pain and suffering can be good, like a surgeon. Causing pain is not necessarily immoral.
Blessings,
Lee
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThousands of people are suffering in the Bahamas right now. Is that good, and what is the cause, a moral intentional god, or an amoral unintentional nature?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNo, the suffering is not good. It may be like the amputated leg. It may be the necessary cost of a greater good. You can't just look at the suffering itself in isolation. You have to have more information.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI'm not sure how to answer that. If the objective laws of logic exist, what authority do they have over us if we violate them? I don't believe in divine retribution for every moral failing, if that's what you mean. If that were the case, there would never have been humans in existence.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 JimL View PostSo you're saying that you believe god is the intentional cause of the suffering and death of the Bahama people?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo but there would be ultimate justice in the universe, we would be living in a just universe rather than an unjust cosmos. And the laws of logic have a pretty immediate effect, it is me or the bus occupying the same space at the same time. A Stalin can murder millions and live to a good old age. No real consequences.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI already responded to this post, but I had a thought as I awoke this morning. It focuses on the emphasized line above. As noted, this is incorrect because there it places on "language" what is more properly placed on "communication" in general. But you have a larger problem. How on earth do you get from "violates the implicit logic of language use" to "moral" or "immoral?" You seem to be suggesting that anything that violates the implicit purpose of a thing is acting immorally? How on earth do you make THAT leap? Doesn't that make the person who takes a brand new automobile and beats it with a hammer to create a work of art (yeah...believe it or not...Museum of Modern Art, Paris) immoral?
We've already been over the distinction between 'communication' and 'language." Once again, lying is linguistic in nature; it is not endemic to communication generally. It's propositional in nature.
How I make the 'leap' is by Kant's Categorical Imperative. If everyone were to lie, it would unmake language, making language and discourse, and therefore morality and civilization themselves, impossible. It wold make the possibility of its own denial impossible. I could not will that lying could become a universal law. It would be an absurdity that would negate itself out of existence in short order. What makes anything immoral, such as in your system? Why does violating valuing/cherishing make something immoral? In this system, it's based in something that would literally undo itself, something real, beyond just feelings and opinions.
The artwork you mention is not an example of something violating its own intrinsic logic. In your example, the artist is merely using a hammer and destroying an automobile. S/he is not destroying the grounds of possibility for what s/he is doing. A crude analogy for what I'm talking about would be if artists started committing suicide en masse. If enough of them did it, there would be no more art or even the possibility of art.
Aside from the "prima facie" amendment, I think Kant's formulation can still be used. What would I be willing to do that I would be willing to make a universal law? What would I will that an Ideal Desirer would will, not that I personally or subjectively want? As imperfectly and incompletely as I can know these things, they are a way for me to potentially subject my willings to a public realm of discourse and beyond my own private desires and valuings.
Furthermore, the entire construct of your argument fails to account for the places where we perceive lying as perfectly acceptable or even a moral obligation. The Allies sent out multiple lies about their attack plans to confuse Nazi Germany before D-Day. The fiancee lies to their intended so as to surprise their intended with that wedding shower. People lied about the presence of slaves in their homes on the underground railroad. You take one example (i.e., the king decreeing everyone lies) and you seem to forget all of the other places where we lie with intent and with no moral conflict.
Now, you can work real hard to carve out all sorts of exceptions to your "implicit language" theory, but my approach far more elegantly deals with the issue. It is not about anything implicit to language. It is about valuing society/community. Society/community absolutely depend on trust to be functional. If we erode trust, we erode society/community. That is what is at work in the U.S. today, and what makes Trump such a dangerous individual. If you value society/community, you will recognize the importance of trust and see anything that erodes trust as an attack on society/community, and therefore immoral. Your moral framework will contain an "ought not lie" model, but tied to the valuing/cherishing of society/community. No exception is needed for the Allies, the fiance, or the stops along the underground railroad because those lies don't erode community - they protect something else that is valued: life - or happiness.
Now I have to run.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNo, I don't believe that. I believe God set the world up as a free process for a greater good in order to support free creatures and that this world comes at a necessary cost: contingent processes clashing and sometimes bad things (natural evils) happening. It's not God's intention that they happen.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostUsually there are real consequences. It's just that the time scales are different than they are for violations of logic or physics. That doesn't mean justice is guaranteed, but things bend toward justice. I believe in moral progress.Last edited by seer; 09-09-2019, 07:28 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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
649 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment