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 carpedm9587 View Post
    No. And the FF's didn't agree with you either.
    Correct, but the general population of England at the time did believe the King had the right to rule. So who is correct?


    Me. The FF's. Many people who believe a government should be "of the people, for the people, and by the people."
    Why are you correct?


    Yes it would - and since we are talking about who has the "right" to "rule" me, I think I'll go with my opinion. But if you want to grant the right to determine who will rule you to someone other than yourself, knock yourself out. It's no skin off my nose.
    And the despot sill rules over whether you agree with that rule or not. Now what?


    Of course it answers the question, Seer. If they are citizens, yes. Citizenship is their consent to be governed. If they live within or otherwise freely enter the boundary of territory determined to be governed by the appointed body, yes. Willingly entering a country governed by such a body constitutes consent. That is why our laws also apply to immigrants and visitors - even the undocumented ones.
    Carp, no one asked for the criminal's consent, and he has explicitly or implicitly denied the social contract by committing crimes - they don't agree with the government's right to rule THEM. Just as you would not agree with the King's right to rule you. Those disagreements however do not remove the authority of the King or the government.
    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
      Correct, but the general population of England at the time did believe the King had the right to rule. So who is correct?
      With respect to governance, I subscribe to the philosophy of the FF's.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Why are you correct?
      Because I am a sentient, autonomous person with the right to chose how I will be governed.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      And the despot sill rules over whether you agree with that rule or not. Now what?
      As I said before, Seer, anyone with sufficient power can "over-rule" someone's autonomy, including in moral matters. If you subscribe to a "might makes right" moral framework, you will see that as "perfectly moral." I do not subscribe to a "might makes right" moral framework. I didn't think you did either - but I'm starting to wonder.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Carp, no one asked for the criminal's consent, and he has explicitly or implicitly denied the social contract by committing crimes - they don't agree with the government's right to rule THEM.
      Seer, if they hold citizenship and/or are voluntarily in a country that is ruled by a "consent" model, then they have implicitly given consent. If they don't want to give consent, renounce citizenship and leave town. It's not a complex thing.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Just as you would not agree with the King's right to rule you.
      Correct - I would not. A king would never have my consent so lacks the right to rule me.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Those disagreements however do not remove the authority of the King or the government.
      In your model, apparently not. In mine, a government by/of/for the people has the right to govern. A king does not have such a right simply by virtue of being king. Is it possible for a people to "elect" or "select" a king? Well, the concept of king includes the concept of inheritance of the title by birth, so I don't see how.

      You do realize that you have somewhat painted yourself into an odd political corner. You are suddenly defending the rights of a monarchy while previously being vociferous about the FFs and the personal rights/freedoms they enshrined in the constitution. It is so odd to see you trying to hold the two views simultaneously, oblivious to the implicit conflicts that arise.
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-12-2019, 01:33 PM.
      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
        With respect to governance, I subscribe to the philosophy of the FF's.
        And?


        Because I am a sentient, autonomous person with the right to chose how I will be governed.
        Isn't that precious, but logically meaningless.


        As I said before, Seer, anyone with sufficient power can "over-rule" someone's autonomy, including in moral matters. If you subscribe to a "might makes right" moral framework, you will see that as "perfectly moral." I do not subscribe to a "might makes right" moral framework. I didn't think you did either - but I'm starting to wonder.
        Again stop accusing me of believing something I don't. The point is you have no rational justification for why your opinion concerning authority is any more correct than the King's.


        Seer, if they hold citizenship and/or are voluntarily in a country that is ruled by a "consent" model, then they have implicitly given consent. If they don't want to give consent, renounce citizenship and leave town. It's not a complex thing.
        One born in this country is a citizen, and if he breaks the law we will jail him, whether he recognizes the government authority OR NOT. His consent to that authority or agreement with the social contract has no meaning as we haul him off to prison.


        Correct - I would not. A king would never have my consent so lacks the right to rule me.
        Except that doesn't matter as he slaps you in the stocks for breaking an edict.

        In your model, apparently not. In mine, a government by/of/for the people has the right to govern. A king does not have such a right simply by virtue of being king. Is it possible for a people to "elect" or "select" a king? Well, the concept of king includes the concept of inheritance of the title by birth, so I don't see how.

        You do realize that you have somewhat painted yourself into an odd political corner. You are suddenly defending the rights of a monarchy while previously being vociferous about the FFs and the personal rights/freedoms they enshrined in the constitution. It is so odd to see you trying to hold the two views simultaneously, oblivious to the implicit conflicts that arise.
        Nonsense Carp, you have just demonstrated that who or what has the right to rule is completely subjective with no opinion objectively more correct than another.
        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
          Right, but like with Carp we still just end up going down the rabbit hole.
          Yeah, can't really expect much there, I suppose. W L Craig makes the following point concerning the laws of logic and God's morality,
          I don’t think that the laws of logic are things, any more than are holes, Wednesdays, or numbers. So while God certainly is the Creator of all that exists, He needn’t be thought to be the Creator of logic’s laws. Rather I’d say that the laws of logic are a description of the functioning of God’s mind. The Bible says, “In the beginning was the Logos (word, reason), and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God” (John 1.1). God is the supremely logical thinker, and the laws of logic are a reflection of His mind, just as the moral law is a reflection of His character. Just as God did not arbitrarily make up the moral law, so He did not arbitrarily make up the laws of logic.

          https://www.reasonablefaith.org/ques...rules-of-logic

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            Yeah, can't really expect much there, I suppose. W L Craig makes the following point concerning the laws of logic and God's morality,
            I don’t think that the laws of logic are things, any more than are holes, Wednesdays, or numbers. So while God certainly is the Creator of all that exists, He needn’t be thought to be the Creator of logic’s laws. Rather I’d say that the laws of logic are a description of the functioning of God’s mind. The Bible says, “In the beginning was the Logos (word, reason), and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God” (John 1.1). God is the supremely logical thinker, and the laws of logic are a reflection of His mind, just as the moral law is a reflection of His character. Just as God did not arbitrarily make up the moral law, so He did not arbitrarily make up the laws of logic.

            https://www.reasonablefaith.org/ques...rules-of-logic
            Right and that is what I have been saying. The laws of logic are a reflection of God's rational nature.
            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?
              You asked, I answered.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Isn't that precious, but logically meaningless.
              Cool. So when you claim to have the right to choose how you're governed and who governs you, I'll remember that. So much for your complaints about the majority.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Again stop accusing me of believing something I don't. The point is you have no rational justification for why your opinion concerning authority is any more correct than the King's.
              The King is stating an opinion about his right to rule over others. I am stating my position about the right of someone else to rule over me. As autonomous, sentient beings, we each have the right to make this decision for ourselves. The founders called it an "inalienable right." This might be familiar to you:

              We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


              While I do not agree with the FFs on the basis of those rights being rooted in a "creator," I do agree with the general observation. I would have written:

              We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are equal under law, possessing certain essential rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


              And if you don't believe in "might makes right," why do you keep advocating for it in the moral sphere? You have made no other argument so far...

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              One born in this country is a citizen, and if he breaks the law we will jail him, whether he recognizes the government authority OR NOT. His consent to that authority or agreement with the social contract has no meaning as we haul him off to prison.
              One born in the country automatically becomes a citizen - and has the option of renouncing that citizenship and going elsewhere. Same principle holds.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Except that doesn't matter as he slaps you in the stocks for breaking an edict.
              So "might makes right," got it...

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Nonsense Carp, you have just demonstrated that who or what has the right to rule is completely subjective with no opinion objectively more correct than another.
              It is subjective in so far as I wield the power to consent as to who rules over me. That is the very principle on which this country was founded - and you are in the odd position of trying to oppose that POV, despite having cited it multiples times in other discussions.

              It's odd...I'll give you that.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-12-2019, 03:39 PM.
              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 Post
                Right and that is what I have been saying. The laws of logic are a reflection of God's rational nature.
                So "god cannot act illogically" translates to "god cannot act in a way god cannot act." Hence..."tautology."
                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 sorting you are describing, Jim, is indeed the same for issues we call "moral" (I ought not kill, I ought preserve life) and those that have to do with everyday life (I ought not walk too close to that cliff, I ought to start that diet). The difference lies largely on the degree to which we value the things the actions do and do not preserve/protect. As I noted, we tend to use "moral" only for actions related to those things we most value (life, liberty, etc.).
                  That's not how it works. As I've said, it's not a difference of degree so much as a difference in kind, with the introduction of things like 'second order desires,' 'universal and categorical judgments', 'normativity'. And what is more immediately important to me than my own biological survival? Yet, "I ought not walk too close to that cliff" is still not a moral injunction. So it can't just be a simple matter of how 'important ' something is.



                  What makes a thing most right or wrong to that individual is indeed rooted in what they value.
                  More importantly in what they ought to value, which is one of the things that distinguishes morality from simple prudence and inclination.







                  The genetic fallacy, Jim, would be if I said it were wrong BECAUSE it was developed by religions, which I did not say. Understanding how a thing came to be as it currently is is not the genetic fallacy.
                  Sure, but why the dwelling on where you assume my system originated from when it's not really germane to the discussion?



                  Most of our moral positions flow fairly logically from what we value. If we value similarly, but have differing moral positions, I find it is usually because there is an error in reasoning somewhere. Find it, and you can potentially convince the person to shift their moral position. Things become less likely when we value differently.
                  But see, there's the point I can't understand. You seem to be contradicting yourself there. If each person is the arbiter of what is right and wrong for him or herself, how can they be 'wrong'? By 'wrong,' do you just mean 'out of step with the majority opinion'? But I thought you said that the majority just sets the norms but the individual is the one who really decides what's right and wrong(?)

                  If subjectivism is true, how would you go about 'persuading' someone who was 'wrong' to believe 'correctly'? Do you appeal to the person's self-interest, or do you appeal to reasons that would be ideally persuasive for any rational agent? (Hint: If it's the latter, you're not really a subjectivist!)



                  There is no guarantee that anyone is going to "listen" or be convinced of any given moral position, Jim B. We see that around us every day. And sometimes, people absolutely "follow the herd," for one reason or another. From my perspective, that is the entire basis for Christian morality.
                  The entire basis? That's an awfully broad brush you're swinging! What about the early abolitionsists or the Civil Rights activists? O the Liberation theology movement in Latin America? Many of the resistance movements were led by Christians, although I admit that there's often a reactionary staus quo defending element that's very prominent in it also.
                  It depends on the point of view of the observer. Personally, I would see it as a major regression away from what I find to be moral. A white supremacist would probably see it as advancement.
                  :) And how do you interact with the white supremacist, assuming that you have to? What I've been trying to say is that morality is designed to create a language, logic and framework in which you and the white supremacist can talk to each other, in which you are not separate egoistic atoms in your own subjectivist spheres creating your own values or ways of calculating 'right' and 'wrong' for yourselves but opening possible paths of dialogue based on reasons and common interests. You see, morality is normative, it's about what we as a species are striving towards and can probably never achieve, about greater and greater communities of inclusion and dialogue. Thousands of years ago, that community would have been one's clan group and then one's tribe and then the nation and people and now ideally all homo sapiens and even beyond to all sentient creatures.


                  I'm not sure what "atomistic conception" means in that context, but the latter part is correct (though the individual is greatly influenced by their context).
                  It means that morality is about social cohesion, dialogue, resolution, all of which are diametrically opposed to subjectivism which is atomistic, ie, each man is an island at least morally creating his or her own values and standards of right and wrong.



                  No - it is about protecting what one values. In the context of a society, that means the moral framework will include the rest of society simply because of the dynamic of the "golden rule" - the assumption that how I treat others is likely how I will be treated in return.
                  What one ought to value. Otherwise, it's just a crude quid pro quo. I value my truck. I treat your truck the way I want you to treat my truck cause I value my truck.


                  I do. And reporting on an observed reality is not "begging the question."
                  If it's the point under contention, then it is begging the question. It would be like if I kept interspersing "I just see that murder and stealing are really wrong. We see it all around us. I'm merely reporting an observed reality."



                  Jim...I didn't say we value just our OWN life. We can also value the lives of those around us. I value the lives of my family for the richness they bring to me. I value the lives of my community for similar reasons. Heck - I value the lives of people in general, for the rich tapestry of life they create and the endless variation I can experience together with them, even if I do not personally meet them.
                  The richness they bring to YOU. The variation YOU can experience. You make my point.



                  At no point did I say that power and convention legitimize anything, Jim. I'm not sure where you got that. Indeed, I do not subscribe to "might makes right" in my own moral framework, though I recognize that some people do.
                  Then where does law and morality derive its legitimacy in your system ultimately? What is the ultimate legitimation for these things other than power and convention?



                  Presumably that slavery should be seen as immoral.
                  And if he's appealing to reasons that would be ideally persuasive for any rational person in similar circumstances, then subjectivism can't be true. I can't believe you can't see that. A true subjectivist would have to say that Wilberforce would have to argue to his audience on subjective grounds, ie that getting rid of slaves will improve your personal situation, etc.



                  Indeed. Exactly. But he was likely speaking to a vast audience, many of whom valued money above life and liberty - and he had little chance with them. Others valued "state's rights" above life and liberty - and he likewise had little chance with them. For both of those he would have had to strive to change their valuing to achieve a change in their moral framework. But for those who valued life (not just one's own, but the lives of others as well), all he needed to do was to get them to see the black man as equally human, and appeal to that valuing.
                  But on what basis could he have done that if subjectivism were true?



                  Of course there can be "mafioso states." There is always the possibility that a position we collectively tend to see as wrong will reverse itself in the future for some period of time in some segment of society. We've seen it in many countries. Some of us believe we are seeing it happen today in the U.S. But history seems to suggest that such things are transient. You can only crush people for so long before they rise up to resist. All it takes is a few charismatic leaders, and they eventually arise. But even what they bring to bear is not permanent. Change is constant.
                  Yes, change is constant, but that doesn't tell us whether the change is good or bad or whether there is real moral progress and regression.



                  You do seem to like that phrase. Again, you cannot "beg the question" by simply reporting on an observed reality.
                  It's what you assume to be a reality is what I am questioning. Imagine arguing with a theist about the existence of God and the theist kept saying "But I'm just reporting the observed reality of God's designs all around me!"

                  Sorry, Jim, but I am not seeing any arguments here affirming your own position, or even stating it. Your arguments seem to be primarily about why morality can't be as I've described, but most of it simply flies past the mark of what I have expressed (i.e., assuming that "valuing life" means "valuing my own life," and so forth).
                  No, I've argued that morality is about dialogue, social cohesion and resolution, all of which are diametrically opposed to subjectivism. You haven't answered that and you haven't offered any reason to believe your position other than that "I'm observing it all around me," and that sort of thing, which isn;t even worth responding to.

                  Another argument against subjectivism is that if it were true, no one could be mistaken about their moral beliefs. But people are mistaken about their moral beliefs all the time because they change their minds about their moral beliefs and admit they were mistaken. They were either wrong at first or wrong later, or wrong in their belief that they were wrong.

                  Another argument is that if subjectivism is true, there cannot be moral disagreement, but there seems to be moral disagreement. If I say X is right and you say X is wrong, we're not disagreeing but reporting on our personal feelings. We're talking about different subjects, not about X at all. So we're not disagreeing or talking about a moral subject at all.

                  It also follows from this that subjectivism is not about morality at all. It's not a moral theory bit a psychological tendency.


                  I am not sure why you think I do not understand the distinction between "absolute" and "objective." The former refers to something that is unchanging, and the latter to something that exists independent of an individual's opinions or ideas. Moral frameworks clearly change, so they are not absolute. Morality is a value judgement about action, so it requires a valuer which makes it subjective. This seems fairly self-evident to me.
                  Morality requires a valuer, but that does not make it subjective. What I mean by objective is that it does not depend upon choice or preference. If there were no valuers, it would not be a fact that murder was wrong, but the fact that murder is wrong is not a matter of choice or preference.
                  Last edited by Jim B.; 08-12-2019, 03:48 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Actually I can. I have freedom in some ways will but other parts of my nature are determined. It is not a contradiction to say that God by nature can not lie or be untrustworthy (for instance) but that He is free to create what He wants or how He wants.
                    You're taliking about a mind, if your mind has free will, then what parts of it are you claiming to be determined.

                    Comment


                    • Jim - the discussion posts have gotten long, so I'm going to opt to simply focus on the "new" areas for us, and leave my previous posts to stand for the rest. Hopefully, we can get to something approaching a simpler back-and-forth.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      That's not how it works. As I've said, it's not a difference of degree so much as a difference in kind, with the introduction of things like 'second order desires,' 'universal and categorical judgments', 'normativity'. And what is more immediately important to me than my own biological survival? Yet, "I ought not walk too close to that cliff" is still not a moral injunction. So it can't just be a simple matter of how 'important ' something is.

                      More importantly in what they ought to value, which is one of the things that distinguishes morality from simple prudence and inclination.

                      Sure, but why the dwelling on where you assume my system originated from when it's not really germane to the discussion?

                      But see, there's the point I can't understand. You seem to be contradicting yourself there. If each person is the arbiter of what is right and wrong for him or herself, how can they be 'wrong'? By 'wrong,' do you just mean 'out of step with the majority opinion'? But I thought you said that the majority just sets the norms but the individual is the one who really decides what's right and wrong(?)

                      If subjectivism is true, how would you go about 'persuading' someone who was 'wrong' to believe 'correctly'? Do you appeal to the person's self-interest, or do you appeal to reasons that would be ideally persuasive for any rational agent? (Hint: If it's the latter, you're not really a subjectivist!)
                      So your confusion here is pretty common and, AFAICT, rooted in a common misconception: that the moral subjectivist must adopt the stance that each person's morality and valuing is "equally good." This is actually objectivist thinking in disguise. Seer falls into this trap all the time. If morality is truly subjective, as I believe it is, then statements like "equally good" or "equally valid" or "equally legitimate" in reference to two different people's moral framework are meaningless. They assume an objective reference point from which to make that assessment. Each of us evaluates our own actions, and the actions of those around us, using our own moral framework. It is the lens through which we see the world. So if your moral framework is not aligned with mine, I will likely evaluate it as "wrong" or "less" than mine. If I evaluate it as "right" or "better" than mine, I will immediately drop my existing position in favor of the one I just evaluated as "better."

                      So someone else's moral framework is not "wrong" as measured by some objective metric. It is "wrong" as measured by my own moral framework. Since a moral framework that is not aligned with mine is a potential threat to the things I value, I will seek to convince the person to change their moral framework if I can. If I cannot: ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend are the only remaining options.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      The entire basis? That's an awfully broad brush you're swinging! What about the early abolitionsists or the Civil Rights activists? O the Liberation theology movement in Latin America? Many of the resistance movements were led by Christians, although I admit that there's often a reactionary staus quo defending element that's very prominent in it also.
                      Perhaps you are right here. Usually CP calls me on wielding two broad a brush - but I am certainly open to others doing so as well. What I was thinking was the people (like Seer) who base their moral framework on "what the bible says." Bear in mind that I am atheist. I believe gods exist only in the minds of men. So when someone's justification for a moral position is "that's what the bible says," what they are doing is "following the herd" that is the small group of men who wrote the various books of the bible over a 1500+ year period. I am sure there are Christians who do not take this approach - but most of the moral positions discussed here (on this site) usually end up at "that's what the bible says."

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      :) And how do you interact with the white supremacist, assuming that you have to? What I've been trying to say is that morality is designed to create a language, logic and framework in which you and the white supremacist can talk to each other, in which you are not separate egoistic atoms in your own subjectivist spheres creating your own values or ways of calculating 'right' and 'wrong' for yourselves but opening possible paths of dialogue based on reasons and common interests. You see, morality is normative, it's about what we as a species are striving towards and can probably never achieve, about greater and greater communities of inclusion and dialogue. Thousands of years ago, that community would have been one's clan group and then one's tribe and then the nation and people and now ideally all homo sapiens and even beyond to all sentient creatures.

                      It means that morality is about social cohesion, dialogue, resolution, all of which are diametrically opposed to subjectivism which is atomistic, ie, each man is an island at least morally creating his or her own values and standards of right and wrong.
                      There is no problem with subjective morality being an engine for social cohesion and discussion. The fact is, we have much in common and significant alignment in our valuing. That serves as a basis for cohesion. We have the entire world of logic in common, which means if we share common valuing, we can usually reason to common moral positions. And how we come to value is informed by our context: social, religious, familial, etc., given us even more in common. That we each derive our own moral framework does not mean there is no cohesion. Indeed, language is a marvelous analogy to how a subjective exercise is also intersubjective and socially binding. The new use of an old word, or the introduction of a new word can start with a single individual. As they use it and explain its meaning, it can gain rapid acceptance by others, and quickly become a new symbol in the language base of a society. Pwned. Googled. Merriam Webster added over 1,000 new words to its dictionary in 2018.

                      Will that enable me to convince the white supremacist to shift his or her moral position? Maybe. Maybe not. If not - ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend. Those do not resolve the moral dilemma - they are simply what we do when the moral dilemma cannot be resolved.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      What one ought to value. Otherwise, it's just a crude quid pro quo. I value my truck. I treat your truck the way I want you to treat my truck cause I value my truck.

                      If it's the point under contention, then it is begging the question. It would be like if I kept interspersing "I just see that murder and stealing are really wrong. We see it all around us. I'm merely reporting an observed reality."

                      The richness they bring to YOU. The variation YOU can experience. You make my point.
                      Of course what I value is about me - it's subjective, remember? The point is, you seemed to be mistakenly assuming that "valuing life" only meant valuing my life. It need not be constrained to that. Indeed, if someone's valuing of life was limited just to themselves, the rest of us would quickly see them as a threat.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Then where does law and morality derive its legitimacy in your system ultimately? What is the ultimate legitimation for these things other than power and convention?
                      Why do I need to identify a legitimation?

                      Jim, moralizing is what a sentient mind does. It is a form of categorization. I am aware of self. I am aware of self as an actor. I have a range of actions available to me. How do I separate those actions into "ought do" and "ought not do?" It's as natural to a sentient mind as eating is to a biological life form.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      And if he's appealing to reasons that would be ideally persuasive for any rational person in similar circumstances, then subjectivism can't be true. I can't believe you can't see that. A true subjectivist would have to say that Wilberforce would have to argue to his audience on subjective grounds, ie that getting rid of slaves will improve your personal situation, etc.

                      But on what basis could he have done that if subjectivism were true?
                      If the slave owner values life as I do (and I have cause to think they might), I can appeal to that commonality. If they value money above life, then I probably don't have a prayer of convincing them.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Yes, change is constant, but that doesn't tell us whether the change is good or bad or whether there is real moral progress and regression.
                      Correct. Morality, like evolution in general, does not progress to a fixed goal. Evolution progresses to "most suited to environment." Change the environment, and the path of evolution will change. If the environment becomes like it was once before, evolution will favor things it previously did not, which will seem like "regression." In fact, it is still progressing, but the goal has moved. Morality does the same thing: change the valuing and the moral positions will change. Progression and regression can only be measured relative to that valuing. There is no absolute yardstick.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      It's what you assume to be a reality is what I am questioning. Imagine arguing with a theist about the existence of God and the theist kept saying "But I'm just reporting the observed reality of God's designs all around me!"
                      You would probably be surprised how many times I have heard exactly that argument!

                      But we are not talking about the same things. In the god argument, we are taking the observed reality and hypothesizing god as a cause without any justification. God is not the observed reality - the universe around us is the observed reality. In this case, I am reporting on what I observe about morality itself - how it operates and how it is conducted all around us.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      No, I've argued that morality is about dialogue, social cohesion and resolution, all of which are diametrically opposed to subjectivism.
                      So here is where we differ. Morality is, first and foremost, the means by which I determine how I ought or ought not act. Because we live in community with a collection of actors, our respective moral positions will impact one another, and so enters the dialogue part. We do enter into dialogue - constantly seeking to persuade others to adopt our own moral positions because we see those positions as superlative (pretty much by definition). In those dialogues, we may or may not reach resolution. When we do not: ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend.

                      Take the current debate around same sex intimacy. My position is that it is morally neutral - subject to the same moral evaluations as opposite-sex intimacy. Seer's position (and possibly yours?) is that it is immoral. My reasoning is grounded in my valuing for life, privacy, and love. I cannot see any argument that suggests love is better/worse between two people solely on the basis of their genetic make-up (XX vs. XY). Seer's position is grounded in "that's what the bible says." His core value is "obeying his god" and he believes the bible is this god's word and his specific interpretation of that bible is the correct one. I once tried to convince him (and others) of the inconsistency of saying "OK between Bob and Pat but not OK between Sam and Chris" when the only difference between the two is the genetic make-up of the participants. In other words rooting morality in genetics is simply not supportable. But I was wrong. The basis of their prohibition was not genetics - it was "what does the bible say." The only way I could possibly sway them is to a) convince them not to value their god (unlikely), b) convince them their god does not require this type of obedience (also unlikely), c) convince them that the bible is not this god's word (still unlikely), or d) convince them that the bible does not say what they think it says (still unlikely). In other words, I don't have a prayer of swaying their moral position on this topic. That leaves me with ignore (which is fine most of the time), isolate/separate (which is happening naturally since we only know one another online) and/or contend (which I do in the voting both, and by working hard to convince the next generation not to adopt a moral position I find immoral).

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      You haven't answered that and you haven't offered any reason to believe your position other than that "I'm observing it all around me," and that sort of thing, which isn;t even worth responding to.
                      As CP often says, "and yet here you are..."

                      Look, Jim - I report what I observe. If morality is NOT subjective, then there should be a good argument that it is objective. If it is not relative, then there should be a good argument that it is absolute. These arguments are wholly lacking. In three decades, no one has offered an argument for why morality HAS to be objective that doesn't reduce to "morality cannot be subjective because then it would not be objective. And no one - not a single person - has been able to demonstrate the existence of (never mind the contents of) an absolute moral principle.

                      Morality is not like logic or mathematics, or even the laws of physics. If every sentient mind in the universe ceased to be - a thing would still be itself. If every sentient mind in the universe ceased to be - a solar system with four solid planets and four gas planets would still have eight planets in all. If every sentient mind in the universe ceased to be - objects with mass would still have a gravitational attraction to one another that is proportionate to their mass and the distance between the objects. But if every sentient mind in the universe ceased to be - there would be no actors and the entire concept of morality would cease to exist. As previously noted - morality is like law - it is not like logic, mathematics, or even the basic operational principles of the universe.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Another argument against subjectivism is that if it were true, no one could be mistaken about their moral beliefs. But people are mistaken about their moral beliefs all the time because they change their minds about their moral beliefs and admit they were mistaken. They were either wrong at first or wrong later, or wrong in their belief that they were wrong.
                      No. First, because morality is rooted in what we value, I can come to a "wrong" moral position by flawed reasoning on what I value, adopting a moral position that actually harms what I value rather than affirming it. Second, if what I value shifts, then a moral position I previously held as "right" can become "wrong" and will shift accordingly. This can also happen if the relationship between things I value shifts (i.e., I value life above liberty - but then an experience causes me to value liberty above life).

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Another argument is that if subjectivism is true, there cannot be moral disagreement, but there seems to be moral disagreement. If I say X is right and you say X is wrong, we're not disagreeing but reporting on our personal feelings. We're talking about different subjects, not about X at all. So we're not disagreeing or talking about a moral subject at all.
                      Sorry, Jim, but this is just false. If I say "same-sex intimacy is morally neutral" and you say "same-sex intimacy is always immoral," then we have a moral disagreement about same sex intimacy. Why we disagree may vary - but we are disagreeing on a moral position, and can do so in a subjective moral world. Indeed, we do so every day.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      It also follows from this that subjectivism is not about morality at all. It's not a moral theory bit a psychological tendency.
                      Now who's begging the question...

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Morality requires a valuer, but that does not make it subjective. What I mean by objective is that it does not depend upon choice or preference. If there were no valuers, it would not be a fact that murder was wrong, but the fact that murder is wrong is not a matter of choice or preference.
                      So murder is a bad choice, because "murder is wrong" a tautology. Murder is wrong by definition. The term "murder" means "an illicit (or wrongful) killing." So "murder is wrong," by substitution, becomes "an illicit (or wrongful) killing is wrong." That is a tautology. It doesn't actually tell us which act constitutes a murder.

                      I think we agree that someone to evaluate whether or not a particular act is moral/immoral does not make morality subjective. All I need is a moral framework, and I can make that evaluation. Indeed, I can say "sex between Chris and Pat (two men) is immoral to Seer," because I know Seer's moral stance on this. I can say "sex between Chris and Pat (two men) is morally neutral to Carpe," because I know Carpe's moral stance on this. That type of assessment is subjective, and NOT what is meant by noting that morality is subjective. When I say morality is subjective, I mean arriving at a particular moral framework is always a subjective act. There is no universally objective moral framework to which we should all be subscribing. It doesn't exist - has never been shown to exist - and doesn't NEED to exist.

                      ETA: so much for narrowing the scope of my post...
                      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 JimL View Post
                        You're taliking about a mind, if your mind has free will, then what parts of it are you claiming to be determined.
                        Jim let's say I was born with strange condition - I could not lie, no matter what, I was constitutionally incapable of uttering an untruth. Would that prevent me from being free in other areas? What I found interesting, what I picked as a career, what subjects I liked studying, favorite foods, colors, recreation choices etc... The fact that I'm determined not to lie does not prevent me from acting free in other areas.
                        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
                          So "god cannot act illogically" translates to "god cannot act in a way god cannot act." Hence..."tautology."
                          Sorry that is just stupid. Carp can not act rationally translates to "Carp cannot act in a way Carp cannot act."
                          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 Tass, I did not say that all God's choices are determined just His moral character - he can not lie, be unjust, be evil etc... He is perfectly free to create, not to create, what to create, who to create, how and when to create, etc...
                            How do you know this? You can’t even verify your premise that God exists.
                            “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 carpedm9587 View Post
                              So your confusion here is pretty common and, AFAICT, rooted in a common misconception: that the moral subjectivist must adopt the stance that each person's morality and valuing is "equally good." This is actually objectivist thinking in disguise. Seer falls into this trap all the time. If morality is truly subjective, as I believe it is, then statements like "equally good" or "equally valid" or "equally legitimate" in reference to two different people's moral framework are meaningless. They assume an objective reference point from which to make that assessment. Each of us evaluates our own actions, and the actions of those around us, using our own moral framework. It is the lens through which we see the world. So if your moral framework is not aligned with mine, I will likely evaluate it as "wrong" or "less" than mine. If I evaluate it as "right" or "better" than mine, I will immediately drop my existing position in favor of the one I just evaluated as "better."
                              I wasn't assuming that all subjectivist positions were 'equally good." I was assuming each one set its own standard for goodness. The way you describe your morality is not the way I experience my morality. When I'm deciding on what to do, I'm not looking at the world through the 'lens of my own moral framework.' I'm not even sure what that means. When I'm thinking about what to do or who to be, I'm trying to discover what is right and/or good. Of course I can't help but look at the world through the lens of who I am, but that's far less important than what it is I'm trying to find. Like focusing on the scratches on my cornea as opposed to the Grand Canyon in front of me, it seems oddly solipsistic. There's a tacit assumption there, as I think there is with most people who don't have an overt ideology, that there is something from outside to be found rather than something from within. And I like I said, I really don't think it's a religious thing. Most moral realists are atheists. But if you don't experience it, probably no argument can make you experience it.

                              So someone else's moral framework is not "wrong" as measured by some objective metric. It is "wrong" as measured by my own moral framework. Since a moral framework that is not aligned with mine is a potential threat to the things I value, I will seek to convince the person to change their moral framework if I can. If I cannot: ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend are the only remaining options.
                              It is "wrong" how, by what criteria? By threatening the things that you value? What if another framework awakens in you doubts about whether you ought to value the things you do and instead value other things? Then you're in the realm of normativity and subjectivity starts to loosen its grip(?)


                              There is no problem with subjective morality being an engine for social cohesion and discussion. The fact is, we have much in common and significant alignment in our valuing. That serves as a basis for cohesion. We have the entire world of logic in common, which means if we share common valuing, we can usually reason to common moral positions. And how we come to value is informed by our context: social, religious, familial, etc., given us even more in common. That we each derive our own moral framework does not mean there is no cohesion. Indeed, language is a marvelous analogy to how a subjective exercise is also intersubjective and socially binding. The new use of an old word, or the introduction of a new word can start with a single individual. As they use it and explain its meaning, it can gain rapid acceptance by others, and quickly become a new symbol in the language base of a society. Pwned. Googled. Merriam Webster added over 1,000 new words to its dictionary in 2018.
                              The problem is we're talking about metaethics, not just about ethics. We're talking about the theoretical underpinnings of ethics. Why be moral? Why follow the law? that sort of thing. For most occasions, you're right and our everyday commonalities will probably see us through. But humans are very contentious. Lots of strife and wars and stuff. Ethics and law and such will all be severely stress-tested and it's good to have a deeper theoretical understanding than just "we'll probably get by because we're so much alike and we've gotten by up to now."

                              Will that enable me to convince the white supremacist to shift his or her moral position? Maybe. Maybe not. If not - ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend. Those do not resolve the moral dilemma - they are simply what we do when the moral dilemma cannot be resolved.
                              It won't be enough to ignore, isolate and separate. Walling off and compartmentalizing has been too often the too-convenient solution and a big part of why things are getting worse. Morality is meant to act as a counter-force to that tendency which is becoming more and more prevalent.



                              Of course what I value is about me - it's subjective, remember? The point is, you seemed to be mistakenly assuming that "valuing life" only meant valuing my life. It need not be constrained to that. Indeed, if someone's valuing of life was limited just to themselves, the rest of us would quickly see them as a threat.
                              It hasn't been established that it's subjective, remember? That's what we're debating. And no, it's not clear that what you value has to be about you. You are necessarily the medium of experience but not necessarily the object of valuing.



                              Why do I need to identify a legitimation?
                              Why be moral? Why follow the law? Where does the law derive its authority from? Don't these questions ever occur to you?

                              Jim, moralizing is what a sentient mind does. It is a form of categorization. I am aware of self. I am aware of self as an actor. I have a range of actions available to me. How do I separate those actions into "ought do" and "ought not do?" It's as natural to a sentient mind as eating is to a biological life form.
                              Only some sentient minds. My cat doesn't moralize. And again, it's only certain kinds of 'ought do' and 'ought not do' actions. Yes, it's natural to rational, social minds, but so is wondering why, as in why do we do it and what does it mean?



                              Correct. Morality, like evolution in general, does not progress to a fixed goal. Evolution progresses to "most suited to environment." Change the environment, and the path of evolution will change. If the environment becomes like it was once before, evolution will favor things it previously did not, which will seem like "regression." In fact, it is still progressing, but the goal has moved. Morality does the same thing: change the valuing and the moral positions will change. Progression and regression can only be measured relative to that valuing. There is no absolute yardstick.
                              I never said there was an 'absolute yardstick,' only that there is an objective framework. You have absolutely no evidence for anything you've asserted here, but your opinions are noted.

                              But we are not talking about the same things. In the god argument, we are taking the observed reality and hypothesizing god as a cause without any justification. God is not the observed reality - the universe around us is the observed reality. In this case, I am reporting on what I observe about morality itself - how it operates and how it is conducted all around us.
                              You miss the point of the analogy again. The theist is looking at the world through the lens of her ideology and seeing it as a transparent revelation of said ideology. It's right there in front of her! You are looking at the empirical data of human behavior and institutions and hypothesizing based upon your ideology as to the causes of the data you're experiencing. For you, the causation is immediately clear. Why can't everyone see it?! It's right there! Ideologies are transparent to those inside of them.



                              Take the current debate around same sex intimacy. My position is that it is morally neutral - subject to the same moral evaluations as opposite-sex intimacy. Seer's position (and possibly yours?) is that it is immoral. My reasoning is grounded in my valuing for life, privacy, and love. I cannot see any argument that suggests love is better/worse between two people solely on the basis of their genetic make-up (XX vs. XY). Seer's position is grounded in "that's what the bible says." His core value is "obeying his god" and he believes the bible is this god's word and his specific interpretation of that bible is the correct one. I once tried to convince him (and others) of the inconsistency of saying "OK between Bob and Pat but not OK between Sam and Chris" when the only difference between the two is the genetic make-up of the participants. In other words rooting morality in genetics is simply not supportable. But I was wrong. The basis of their prohibition was not genetics - it was "what does the bible say." The only way I could possibly sway them is to a) convince them not to value their god (unlikely), b) convince them their god does not require this type of obedience (also unlikely), c) convince them that the bible is not this god's word (still unlikely), or d) convince them that the bible does not say what they think it says (still unlikely). In other words, I don't have a prayer of swaying their moral position on this topic. That leaves me with ignore (which is fine most of the time), isolate/separate (which is happening naturally since we only know one another online) and/or contend (which I do in the voting both, and by working hard to convince the next generation not to adopt a moral position I find immoral).
                              FYI, I don't think it's immoral. I have a friend who is a Christian who has an MDiv and a website who doesn't believe it's immoral either and who takes a different perspective on it.


                              Look, Jim - I report what I observe. If morality is NOT subjective, then there should be a good argument that it is objective. If it is not relative, then there should be a good argument that it is absolute. These arguments are wholly lacking. In three decades, no one has offered an argument for why morality HAS to be objective that doesn't reduce to "morality cannot be subjective because then it would not be objective. And no one - not a single person - has been able to demonstrate the existence of (never mind the contents of) an absolute moral principle.
                              As I said, I don't believe in absolute moral principles that are non-overridable, any more than I believe in absolute space or time. But I believe in the objectivity of temporal and spatial relations and the judgments made about them...

                              Morality is not like logic or mathematics, or even the laws of physics. If every sentient mind in the universe ceased to be - a thing would still be itself. If every sentient mind in the universe ceased to be - a solar system with four solid planets and four gas planets would still have eight planets in all. If every sentient mind in the universe ceased to be - objects with mass would still have a gravitational attraction to one another that is proportionate to their mass and the distance between the objects. But if every sentient mind in the universe ceased to be - there would be no actors and the entire concept of morality would cease to exist. As previously noted - morality is like law - it is not like logic, mathematics, or even the basic operational principles of the universe.
                              I like to think of morality like color. Colors depend upon creatures with visual systems in order to perceive them. If all the creatures with visual systems in the universe disappeared, all color would disappear too, unless God of course perceives color and/or is the source of color, but let's set that aside for now since you're an atheist. Color would be what's called a 'synergistic' or 'emergent' entity. It emerges out of the fusion of various factors coming together in just the right way. Despite all this, color is still 'objective' because it doesn't depend upon choice or preference. It's not up to me or anyone else what is red or blue or yellow. Those things are fixed by laws of physics and optics. It's not a subjective matter or a matter of opinion.

                              It's getting late. I'll finish tomorrow!
                              Last edited by Jim B.; 08-13-2019, 03:34 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Sorry that is just stupid.
                                You just can't help yourself, can you...

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Carp can not act rationally translates to "Carp cannot act in a way Carp cannot act."
                                No one is claiming that "logic is merely a description of how Carpe's brain functions." (I can just hear the comments now... )

                                That is how you are describing god. Therefore, if logic is simply "how god's mind works" and "God cannot act other than how his mind works," then the claim "god cannot act irrationality" reduces to "god cannot act other than how god can act."

                                The logic is fairly straightforward - and the statement is shown to be a tautology. It ultimately says nothing. It's like saying "green is green" or "the walking man is walking."
                                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

                                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
                                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