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 PostBecause living together in peace and harmony rather than everyone seeking their own selfish desires is ultimately in your own best interests as well as societies as a whole. People realized that long before attributing social behavior, right and wrong, good and evil, to a moral authoritative source.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 PostThe same as it matters to everyone else which is why we live in moral based societies.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 Jim B. View PostYou haven't investigated many ways my argument can make sense then, only the ways you would prefer it to make sense.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThis is a bunch of simplisitic hooey. It applies to all sentience. All sentient beings value things. Heliotropic plants 'value' sunlight, but they are not moral. The things you say are so general that they have no application to morality. We're interested in differentiating factors. What differentiates beings capable of morality from bacteria and grubworms and lice?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAnd none of those things are consciously the subjects of subjective individual choice or preference. Does anyone ever choose freedom?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostOne would already have to be free in order to choose freedom.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostOr love?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThese are basic human needs. They're not subjective any more than breathing is, even though in some cases people deny themselves these things, just as people can deny themselves their next breath. Subjective choice and preference only enters in the planning and fufillment of secondary and tertiary desires about how to fulfill these core needs. So it's hard to see how the "valuing/cherishing" (to use your fetish phrase) of core values is subjective at all.
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post"Killing an innocent person is wrong" would be what some consider an objective moral truth.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThe ostensible existence of free will would be a "fact of the matter."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 PostI don't think you can make the case that "killing an innocent person is wrong" is an objective moral truth, but you are welcome to try. Why is "killing an innocent person" objectively 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 PostJim, if there is no ultimate justice, or universal reckoning if you will, why would it be rational to deny your selfish desires or wishes?
It sounds like you're similar to Carp, an ethical subjectivist, except that in your case, the subjectivism is God's.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBecause there's something in the act itself that makes it right, or wrong. God could not create His own character ab nihilo. God's goodness was always already inscribed in His character because it was good. He could not create his own goodness because that would have called for Him to already be good.
It sounds like you're similar to Carp, an ethical subjectivist, except that in your case, the subjectivism is God's.Last edited by seer; 09-09-2019, 01:09 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 Jim B. View PostNo. Metaphysics is one area where there are possible facts of the matter. We just don't know for sure, but there can still be constructive disagreement nonetheless. So you're wrong.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNo. Wrong again. It is more complex than that. Many species are sentient and need to categorize in the face of the ability to act and choose but are not moral unless you redefine "moral" by special pleading and question-begging to fit your definition.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostSo here you are equivocating on the meaning of the word "subjective" again. I can't believe we're going to go through this again. Do you remember the definition we agreed to? The subject of choice or preference by one individual person? On this definition, it wold make no difference if the source of the opinion were the art community or the mouth of God. It still would not depend upon the choice or preference of one individual person, in this case, ME, in this analogy.
Morality is subjective by this definition, as previously noted. When you have a lot of people agreeing on a particular moral principle, it is subjective to the individuals, and inter-subjective to the group. It does not magically become "objective."
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
The fact that a collection of people come to a common, subjectively derived, conclusion does not make that conclusion "objective" in the proper sense.
Or if you want to look at it differently, your moral framework is an objective truth to me, but a subjective one to you. But a communal norm is not so clean, because I am PART of the collective that derives the communal norm. If enough of "me" change, the norm will disappear. Hence the term "intersubjective." Language is likewise "intersubjective." Appealing to the fact that a community can come to an agreement on subjectively derived moral or artistic norms does not magically make them "objective truths."
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBecause there's this ethical theory you might have heard about called "ethical subjectivism" which states that moral truth just is what the individual's moral beliefs are. There is no corresponding "aesthetic subjectivism" theory. In any case, that's not what we're talking about here.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI can and have pointed out why it's ridiculous, such as the fallibility argument.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI have used the truth normative and the moral disagreement arguments which in all honesty you have badly misunderstood.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI have used the argument from reason. I've argued for why core values are reason-based and why they are not subjective.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI've beaten you seven ways from Friday. I'm just on here for amusement. You just don't know enough to lay down. That's okay, though. Keeps me out of trouble on a Saturday night.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAnd none of this has one whit to do with the fallibility argument. Nothing. Nada. You still have not given me what I asked for, which is a terse definition of subjectivism such that it would answer the fallibility argument. I take your failure to do so as an admission that the argument goes through.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNo, once again, it's not about it not being objective. It's about it being fallible. It's about the logical consequences of your own words, in which you conceded that it was possible for subjectivists to be wrong in their moral assessments. It has to do with the logical entailments of your own words. Game over. What do you want to talk about next?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWhy do you put "wrong" in scare quotes, when you mean just plain wrong?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAnd again, how can subjectivism accomodate being wrong? If you were wrong, there's some other standard for truth than your moral beliefs, opinions, feelings, or tastes at a certain time.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostHow do you know for sure?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWho are you to tell us what the answer to questions depends on?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostOkay. Here's the problem. Subjectivism is defined as the ethical theory that moral truth is what an individual's beliefs and desires are at a certain time. It is not the theory that ethical truth is what an individual 'values and cherishes.' Those can never be timed. Propositional states can be timed. I believed that X at time T. What are the things that I truly value? Is it a neat quantifiable list? Is it a list of things that I have chosen? How could such a question be answered? The timing is important because morality has to do with actions. What did I believe/desire when I did X? the motivational connection is much more direct at the time or just before the action occurs or during deliberation. [B]So if I believe X is morally permissible at time t, and I perform X, on subjectivism, it is permissible.
"Subjectivism is defined as the ethical theory that moral truth is what an individual's beliefs and desires are at a certain time." - I mostly align with this. The individual derives their own moral framework and it is rooted in things they subjectively arrive at. That moral framework can and does change over time, so the framework is "true" for that individual at a specific moment in their life.
"It is not the theory that ethical truth is what an individual 'values and cherishes.'" - if you want to chat with me, I suggest you get used to adding it to your understanding of what I am proposing. Individuals do not just form moral frameworks in a vacuum. We form moral frameworks to serve a very specific purpose: to protect/nurture/enhance/promote the things we move dearly value/cherish. That has been part of my definition of moral subjectivism from the outset. If you're going to discuss with me, it might be a good idea to pay attention to what I am arguing, and not what you think I should be arguing.
"Those can never be timed. Propositional states can be timed. I believed that X at time T." - So this seems to contradict itself. What I value/cherish is valued/cherished for a particular period in my life. It may be my entire life, or it may be a short period. During that period, it will govern my moral principles.
"What are the things that I truly value?" - that is a question each person must answer for themselves.
"Is it a neat quantifiable list?" - why does this matter? For some it may be, for others it may not.
"Is it a list of things that I have chosen?" Ppssibly. It may include things I have explicitly chosen, things I was raised to value/cherish, things I reasoned to valuing/cherishing. As noted several times, there are many ways something ay get onto our list of "things I value/cherish." And the list may change in membership and relative importance over the course of our lives.
"How could such a question be answered?" - if I seek to answer it, self-reflection and conversation.
"The timing is important because morality has to do with actions. What did I believe/desire when I did X?" - Not sure why this is important to you. How I made my choice when I made it will be driven by my valuing/cherishing at that time (consciously or not). How I evaluate it from a future vantage point will be based on what I value/cherish then. An act I see as moral today I may come to see as immoral tomorrow.
"the motivational connection is much more direct at the time or just before the action occurs or during deliberation." - not sure what this means.
"So if I believe X is morally permissible at time t, and I perform X, on subjectivism, it is permissible." - Yes - it is, as evaluated by that person at that time based on their concurrent valuing/cherishing. It may be assessed differently from a future vantage point. Clearly another person may evaluate it very differently.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostMore question-begging. It can't be objective because then it wouldn't be subjective.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAre the two things linked for you? That is, the denial of gods and the denial of objective morality? I see no necessary linkage.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostHow does the empiricist get to general inductive truths without any reference to subjectively derived individual observations?
Logic, reason, transitivity, induction, deduction, intuition, observation,...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 PostI'm not asking for a generic response, Jim. I'm asking you to choose a moral principle and trace the argument in a fashion that demonstrates the "objective truth" of the proposition. I have asked for this many, many times now. As with Seer, I don't get an answer. Pick a moral truth you believe is an objective moral truth - and then make the argument for it. Demonstrate it to be truly, objectively true (or false).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 Jim B. View PostKant's "Categorical Imperative" is, he wrote, a proposition that expresses an unconditional moral imperative binding in all circumstances and not dependent on a person's inclinations and purposes. He expressed it this way: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." I don't accept Kant's version of it, because obviously our moral duties sometimes clash and we sometimes have to lexically order our duties. W.D. ROss came up with the idea of "Prima Facie Duties" which means that we have certain moral obligations but that they are not always absolutely binding in cases where they're superseded by other duties. So I may have to lie in order to prevent the Jewish family from being murdered. My lying doesn't mean, according to Ross, that my duty not to lie disappears, but that it is temporarily overridden by the greater duty to not let innocents be murdered.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWe'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.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostHow 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.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostIt 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.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThe 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.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAside 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.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostSee above.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThe problem with all of this of course is that it tells us nothing about the society/community I happen to be a part of.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWhat if my society/community is Nazi Germany?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostIt depends on trust.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostSometimes trust NEEDS to be eroded. Sometimes trust is a dangerous toxic thing. I believe that trust in some things is bad.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAnd life-- at what cost, and what kind of life?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostIf you could be "happy" in Walden 2, would that be desirable?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAll of these things are complex and context-dependent. they don't yield to easy answers or to slogans. I recommend you take a look at the work of John Rawls, if you haven't already.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 PostAt this point I think we can dispense with everything else, this is the crux of the matter.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 PostYou are also welcome to try. I'll respond if you're on new territory and not sliding back into your more typical forms of trolling.Last edited by seer; 09-09-2019, 02:58 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 PostWell yes God's moral law is subjective to Him (objective to humankind), but grounded in His immutable moral character.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI think this is something we've gone around on a bit. How can moral law be subjective to God if it is grounded in his own immutable moral and perfect character? For you to say that God's moral law is subjective to him seems awfully close to agreeing with that horn of Euthyphro's Dilemma that says the good is good because God wills 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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
643 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment