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
    Right, so all your prattling about moral reasoning and true premises is about as meaningful as your preference for pizza. Got it, thanks...
    So, "prattling" is just a well-poisoning pejorative, Seer. Surely you can keep the discussion above that?

    And "about as meaningful" is subject to enormous interpretation.

    However, you are again complaining "it's not absolute/objective," and you STILL cannot see that you have not made an argument. I've already agreed with you - it's not absolute/objective. That's pretty much the whole point. I'll forego asking, "so what?" because history suggests you will respond with "it's not absolute/objective" again. You don't seem to see that it's your only response...and it's not a useful one.
    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
      So, "prattling" is just a well-poisoning pejorative, Seer. Surely you can keep the discussion above that?

      And "about as meaningful" is subject to enormous interpretation.

      However, you are again complaining "it's not absolute/objective," and you STILL cannot see that you have not made an argument. I've already agreed with you - it's not absolute/objective. That's pretty much the whole point. I'll forego asking, "so what?" because history suggests you will respond with "it's not absolute/objective" again. You don't seem to see that it's your only response...and it's not a useful one.
      Well Carp, once again thanks for sharing your preferences...
      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
        Well Carp, once again thanks for sharing your preferences...
        You really cannot help yourself, can you? I have to wonder, do you really think you've made an argument?

        Yes...relative/subjective morality is type of preference - it is subjective/relative. I've agreed to and acknowledged this multiple times now. Is it possible for you to answer, "so what?" without simply pointing out that it's not absolute/objective again? If so - I'll respond to your response. If not - I think we're finished (not that we ever really got started...).
        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 really cannot help yourself, can you? I have to wonder, do you really think you've made an argument?

          Yes...relative/subjective morality is type of preference - it is subjective/relative. I've agreed to and acknowledged this multiple times now. Is it possible for you to answer, "so what?" without simply pointing out that it's not absolute/objective again? If so - I'll respond to your response. If not - I think we're finished (not that we ever really got started...).
          And again, you have not told us why your moral preferences are any more insightful or correct than the herd's preferences, why one logically shouldn't just take the herd's position.
          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
            And again, you have not told us why your moral preferences are any more insightful or correct than the herd's preferences, why one logically shouldn't just take the herd's position.
            So you've confirmed that we're done here. Thanks for the chat, Seer.
            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
              So you've confirmed that we're done here. Thanks for the chat, Seer.
              Correct, we are done, given that your premises and moral goals are subjective, as subjective (in your view) as what the herd believes there is no rational reason why one position is preferable to the other.
              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
                And again, you have not told us why your moral preferences are any more insightful or correct than the herd's preferences, why one logically shouldn't just take the herd's position.
                Aren't Christian believers just taking the position of the Christian herd?
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Aren't Christian believers just taking the position of the Christian herd?
                  I don't think he has a problem with that (AFAICT) because the heard is "following Christ." His entire evaluation is from within the confines of that reality, and he doesn't seem to be able to see outside of it. So his "critique" is entirely within that reality. I don't think he even can see that his "refutation" of relative/subjective morality boils down to "it isn't absolute/objective." I have not found the words that will make it possible for him to see that his entire argument is not an argument at all.
                  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 don't think he has a problem with that (AFAICT) because the heard is "following Christ." His entire evaluation is from within the confines of that reality, and he doesn't seem to be able to see outside of it. So his "critique" is entirely within that reality. I don't think he even can see that his "refutation" of relative/subjective morality boils down to "it isn't absolute/objective." I have not found the words that will make it possible for him to see that his entire argument is not an argument at all.
                    No Carp, I took your view on face value. It had little to do with objective/subjective but everything to do with your reliance on "true premises" and "moral reasoning" for coming to moral conclusions. And the fact that that "process" leads us nowhere, ethically, it certainly does not produce anything that is more valid or insightful than what the herd comes up with. In reality it only confirms your subjective biases. You like to use the terms like "true premises" and "moral reasoning" to suggest that somehow you are superior to old Fred who just follows the herd, but you are not, nor are your conclusions any more justified, correct or insightful.
                    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
                      No Carp, I took your view on face value. It had little to do with objective/subjective but everything to do with your reliance on "true premises" and "moral reasoning" for coming to moral conclusions. And the fact that that "process" leads us nowhere, ethically, it certainly does not produce anything that is more valid or insightful than what the herd comes up with.
                      The "leads nowhere" is grounded in your worldview that morality/ethics are rooted in absolute/objective norms. This is what you don't see. You can only say "leads nowhere" because "somewhere" (to you) is the absolute/objective norm, and relative/subjective morality doesn't get you there. Of course, it can't - it's not absolute/objective. This is what you do not see. Relative/subjective morality will NOT get you to an absolute/objective norm - by definition.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      In reality it only confirms your subjective biases.
                      Correct - relative/subjective morality is relative/subjective - I never claimed otherwise. Again, Seer this sentence reduces to "Your relative/subjective morality is relative/subjective." We know that is true - by definition. When I ask "so what," and you can do is repeat the mantra.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      You like to use the terms like "true premises" and "moral reasoning" to suggest that somehow you are superior to old Fred who just follows the herd, but you are not, nor are your conclusions any more justified, correct or insightful.
                      "True premises" to me - because they are premises about what I value. "Moral reasoning" is simply "reasoning" applied to moral issues. Reasoning is reasoning - you either do it well or you don't do it well. And my moralizing WILL be superior to Fred in two ways:

                      1) The conclusion (i.e., moral position) will be relatively/subjectively superior to me - because it aligns with what I value. I have never claimed it would be "absolutely/objectively" superior to everyone. You keep foisting that on me and asserting I have claimed it - when I have never done anything of the kind.
                      2) The process is (IMO) objectively superior, because it is actually applying reasoning. That provides a basis for discussion and argument. If Fred's position is "what the herd wants," Fred's position is not based on any reasoning whatsoever. All Fred is trying to do is determine "what the herd wants." So Fred's position cannot be discussed or reasoned with because its not grounded in reason. What the herd wants is what Fred wants. End of story.

                      But you seem to think I am claiming "absolute/objective" superiority to Fred. That would be silly, since I see morality as subjective/relative. You are trying to assess in absolute terms - and cannot even see that you continually do it. You even interpret what I say in those terms, and cannot see that you continually do that too.

                      So we come back to your constant refrain: relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. I agree - 110%. It's not. By definition. I never claimed it was. My question is, "so what?" Based on previous experience, I think I can safely predict you answer will be a variation of "It's bad because it's not absolute/objective."
                      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
                        The "leads nowhere" is grounded in your worldview that morality/ethics are rooted in absolute/objective norms. This is what you don't see. You can only say "leads nowhere" because "somewhere" (to you) is the absolute/objective norm, and relative/subjective morality doesn't get you there. Of course, it can't - it's not absolute/objective. This is what you do not see. Relative/subjective morality will NOT get you to an absolute/objective norm - by definition.



                        Correct - relative/subjective morality is relative/subjective - I never claimed otherwise. Again, Seer this sentence reduces to "Your relative/subjective morality is relative/subjective." We know that is true - by definition. When I ask "so what," and you can do is repeat the mantra.



                        "True premises" to me - because they are premises about what I value. "Moral reasoning" is simply "reasoning" applied to moral issues. Reasoning is reasoning - you either do it well or you don't do it well. And my moralizing WILL be superior to Fred in two ways:

                        1) The conclusion (i.e., moral position) will be relatively/subjectively superior to me - because it aligns with what I value. I have never claimed it would be "absolutely/objectively" superior to everyone. You keep foisting that on me and asserting I have claimed it - when I have never done anything of the kind.
                        2) The process is (IMO) objectively superior, because it is actually applying reasoning. That provides a basis for discussion and argument. If Fred's position is "what the herd wants," Fred's position is not based on any reasoning whatsoever. All Fred is trying to do is determine "what the herd wants." So Fred's position cannot be discussed or reasoned with because its not grounded in reason. What the herd wants is what Fred wants. End of story.

                        But you seem to think I am claiming "absolute/objective" superiority to Fred. That would be silly, since I see morality as subjective/relative. You are trying to assess in absolute terms - and cannot even see that you continually do it. You even interpret what I say in those terms, and cannot see that you continually do that too.

                        So we come back to your constant refrain: relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. I agree - 110%. It's not. By definition. I never claimed it was. My question is, "so what?" Based on previous experience, I think I can safely predict you answer will be a variation of "It's bad because it's not absolute/objective."
                        Carp, with your moral reasoning, are your ethical conclusions any more insightful, true, correct or justified that what the herd believes. Please a straight yes or no answer. And if yes, how is that so in your relative world?
                        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
                          Carp, with your moral reasoning, are your ethical conclusions any more insightful, true, correct or justified that what the herd believes.
                          1) They are relatively/subjectively more insightful. They are NOT "absolutely/objectively" more insightful.
                          2) They are arrived at by reason/logic, so they can be discussed and reasoned about.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Please a straight yes or no answer. And if yes, how is that so in your relative world?
                          I would think that would be pretty self-evident, and I have answered this before. They root in what I value - and are reasoned to from there. Ergo - they will be more "insightful" insofar as they will align (assuming correct reasoning) to the value-structure on which they are based.

                          A "follow the herd" morality roots itself in a single value: "what the herd thinks" and is not reasoned to from there - it is simply adopted as is. Because it is not rooted in reason, it cannot be reasoned against. The only response from such a moralizer can be "you are wrong - because the herd says so." That means if the herd says "this is wrong" - that is what will be perceived as wrong, end of story.

                          So if the herd says "random killing is wrong," then the follow-the-herd moralizer will see random killing as wrong. If the herd says "homosexual behavior is wrong," then the follow-the-herd moralizer will see homosexual behavior is wrong. There is no basis for rational discussion.
                          Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-08-2019, 09:56 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
                            1) They are relatively/subjectively more insightful. They are NOT "absolutely/objectively" more insightful.
                            2) They are arrived at by reason/logic, so they can be discussed and reasoned about.
                            So your initial premises are arrived at by reason? How dose that work? And what do you mean more relatively insightful? That doesn't even make sense. Are the Maoist's moral conclusions more insightful?
                            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 your initial premises are arrived at by reason? How dose that work?
                              I did not say that. I said that moral conclusions are reasoned to from those premises. The premises (what we value) are arrived at by a wide range of ways: family influence, social influence, our physical reality, reasoning, our experiences, etc.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              And what do you mean more relatively insightful? That doesn't even make sense.
                              It doesn't to you - because you are stuck in your "absolute/objective" box. I mean that, assuming my reasoning is not flawed, they will logically flow from my subjective/relative premises.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Are the Maoist's moral conclusions more insightful?
                              To the Maoist, assuming they have reasoned correctly, possibly. That does not make them more insightful to me. It does not make them more "absolutely insightful." But then it's not supposed to - it's not absolute/objective - as I now have said multiple times. I'm wondering if you are perhaps starting to see the problem you face?
                              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 did not say that. I said that moral conclusions are reasoned to from those premises. The premises (what we value) are arrived at by a wide range of ways: family influence, social influence, our physical reality, reasoning, our experiences, etc.
                                So largely your premises come the herd. I don't see how they come from physical reality or reasoning since that too would first need premises to be logical.

                                It doesn't to you - because you are stuck in your "absolute/objective" box. I mean that, assuming my reasoning is not flawed, they will logically flow from my subjective/relative premises.
                                And why is that more insightful than what the herd believes?

                                To the Maoist, assuming they have reasoned correctly, possibly. That does not make them more insightful to me. It does not make them more "absolutely insightful." But then it's not supposed to - it's not absolute/objective - as I now have said multiple times. I'm wondering if you are perhaps starting to see the problem you face?
                                Then nothing makes your conclusions more insightful than the herds... You again are just telling us what you prefer.
                                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
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 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