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
    And my point is that if God did create the universe it is in no way natural - i.e. being created by nature. And again I'm questioning the assumption that the supernatural can not include scientifically knowable phenomenon. We don't know that - nor do we have any objective way to demonstrate otherwise.
    If god created the universe and god is supernatural, then the origins and creation of the universe are supernatural (i.e., science won't be able to explain it). Whether or not the universe itself supernatural depends on exactly what this hypothetical god created. If this god created this universe to be "understandable by science," then it is natural because science can explore and understand it. If not, then it is supernatural. That's what the words mean.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Just as we need logical absolutes to formulate any reasonable arguments, I maintain that we too need universal moral truths to formulate any reasonable moral arguments.
    Yeah - I know you do. You've made that opinion clear on multiple occasions. You simply have not supported it adequately with solid argumentation.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Saying that dishonesty can be a relative moral good is like saying that the law of non-contradiction is not universally valid.
    No - it's not.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Without which - in either case, no reliable, or sensible, argument can be made. And no argument can be reasonably refuted. That is where you leave us.
    No - I don't. Morality being subjective does not leave us with "no argument can be refuted." It leaves with "it is possible that a given moral position cannot be rationally refuted." But then again, it is possible that local, state, or national laws cannot be rationally refuted, and no one seems to complain about that. You are trying to carve out a special exception for morality - to equate it with logical and mathematical principles - but you have no justification for such a comparison. As has been noted multiple times, moral principles are more analogous to legal ones than to the laws of mathematics/logic. Both deal with behavior. Both specify what "ought" or "ought not" occur. The subjective nature of legal principles does not seem to be a problem - so I don't see why the subjective nature of moral principles would be any more problematic.

    It is only problematic because people have been conditioned to the idea that moral norms have to be absolute/universal and objectively true. That has been used by individuals and societies as a means to control other people for millennia now. But upon close examination, there is no reason to accept that just because it is what has always been accepted. In fact, morality is subjective. It always has been and cannot rationally be shown NOT to be. Indeed, what we see all around us is subjective morality in operation each and every day. I can trace my moral position to it's subjective roots. You CANNOT trace your moral positions to purely objectively true roots and will ALWAYS have to resort to subjective truths. THAT is what makes morality subjective.

    But - as I have said multiple times now - all you need to do to show my position to be undeniably wrong is to take any moral position you hold and trace it to objectively true roots with no appeal whatsoever to subjectively true ideas. So far...crickets.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-26-2019, 12:51 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 Adrift View Post
      It sounds to me that you're entirely confused on what it means for God's nature to be identified with "the good." While your nature may do good and bad, it is not "the good," and "the bad." I suggest you read something like Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig. That may help you understand where you're tripping up, because it seems the more I attempt to work through it with you, the more confused you're getting. I may just suck at explaining these sorts of things.
      Seems conceptually similar to the Platonic ideals.
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, I don't think so, not unless you're a pantheist or panentheist of some sort.

        Dr. Craig explains what he means by God is the good in this way,
        "I think that God is what Plato called The Good. On the Christian view God is Plato’s Good. That is to say, God himself is the source and standard of all value and is the very embodiment (the paradigm as it were) of goodness itself. So God is the source of the moral law. He issues the moral law to us, and he acts in perfect conformity with his moral character that is reflected in the moral law."

        https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podc...rt-10#_ftnref2
        I was right!


        Yeah, yeah, just ignore me - having a moment here...
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          So, first, you are the one who has changed my position to "rooted in immediate experience," basically substituting your "phenomenological" for my "subjective." I have not said "rooted in immediate experience." I have said "rooted in what we value/cherish, which is subjectively selected. So you are not arguing against my position - but rather against the position you have substituted in its place. I'll leave you to have that battle since you are essentially having it with yourself. I'll respond to arguments against or about the positions I have actually put forward.

          Second, if you believe you can take something that springs from a subjective reality and demonstrate that it somehow becomes objective, I invite you to knock yourself out. I have no idea how you are going to achieve that slight of hand/mind.



          So you are not responding to what I am saying. I have no problem with the statement "we apprehend objective truths phenomenologically." That observation says nothing about the position I have put forward, since we apprehend ALL truth/knowledge phenomenologically. You have not shown how morality is rooted in objective truths. Objective truths are certainly part of morality: they provide the context in which we engage in it. But there is no moral principle you can point to that is "objectively true." You have not shown this, despite claiming it many times.
          I am but apparently not in a way you're following. All intrinsic values are experiential. I value pleasure. Pleasure is an experience. I disvalue pain. Pain is an experience. I value love, life, consciousness intrinsically, for their own sake, because they're experiences. Moral values are not generally intrinsic but complex and derived from experiential values. Just because moral truths are 'rooted in' or are first encountered in individually experienced values doesn't mean that those truths are identical to those values.

          Imagine that I value a political cause. It's rooted in my subjective values which are rooted in my experiential values. But if you ask me why I am devoting my life to this cause, the "Why" is ambiguous. You may be asking for my psychological motivation, in which case I would be right to answer as an ethical subjectivist and tell you about my subjective values. But you may also be asking "Why" in the sense of justification, in which case I would answer about the reasons why I think the cause is just and right and politically justified. If I shift into a justificatory mode, I cannot remain confined to JUST my private world of my own valuings/cherishings. I have to shift to a public mode of publicly justifiable (at least in principle) reasons that I must be ready and able to defend.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

            You are trying to argue that there are moral principles that are essentially the equivalent of these mathematical or logical truths: if one disagrees with them they are objectively wrong. I am disagreeing with you, and pointing out you have provided no basis for making this claim.
            I don't know how useful the math/logic analogy is. Math truths would hold, arguably without any rational beings. Moral truths would not. they're emergent or synergistic entities like colors.



            Since I have never made this claim, I have no response to this.
            My point is that your definition of morality is so broad and vacuous as to be virtually useless. It's like saying the function of language is to string lexical units into grammatically correct sentences. Formally correct but explanatorily empty. It's tailor-made for one purpose only: to fit your already agreed upon ethical theory.



            I have told you what the purpose for morality is, to which you responded:
            "A definition that can potentially apply to everything ends up meaning essentially nothing."



            Your opinion is duly noted, but that IS the purpose of morality. We moralize to sort possible/potential/actual actions into "ought" and "ought not." We do so to protect the things we value/cherish. That is the fundamental purpose of morality. If you think otherwise, then provide a moral principle and explain it's purpose in a way that does NOT fundamentally derive from something the individual values/cherishes. I have noted several times - do this for ONE moral principle and you destroy my position. So far.... crickets...
            That's because you're hopelessly confused AND supremely confident in yourself. A natural scientist also never performs any action that does not spring form something she values/cherishes. A mathematician never performs any action that does not spring form something he values/cherishes. Therefore it follows that there is no scientific or mathematical finding that does not derive from individual valuings/cherishings.


            You're apparently confusing 'psychological derivation' with 'logical dependence' or 'entailment.' Everything I do psychologically derives to some degree from what I value/cherish, but it doesn't follow from this trivial psychological commonplace that everything I do therefore logically depends upon those psychological starting points.

            "Honesty" is a necessary pre-condition for the functioning of language, rational discourse, communication, cooperation, interpersonal relationships, trust, society in general. My being honest psychologically derives from my valuing it but like the political cause I referred to in the previous post, if you ask me why I value it, aside form other autobiographical and psychological facts about my background, I will give you some kind of jusitification that goes beyond my personal psychological reasons. I may answer in a deontological way, Kant's CI, or in the way sketched above, that it is necessary for the functioning of human life. Regardless of my meta-ethical justification, (unless of course I'm a subjectivist) the reasons I cite in this latter mode DO NOT depend upon my own attitudes. Nor do assume that the value of honesty is absolute in all cases.



            I'll answer the rest later. I keep getting kicked off the internet!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              I am but apparently not in a way you're following.
              That is always a possibility.

              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              All intrinsic values are experiential. I value pleasure. Pleasure is an experience. I disvalue pain. Pain is an experience. I value love, life, consciousness intrinsically, for their own sake, because they're experiences.
              You do not value these things "because they are experiences." If you did, you would value everything you experience. You most surely don't. You value particular experiences, for a wide variety of reasons.

              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              Moral values are not generally intrinsic but complex and derived from experiential values.
              Moral principles are derived from the specific things we experience that we come to value. Agreed. THAT is what makes morality subjective. What we value is subjective - so any morality that springs from it is likewise subjective. This sentence (on your part) suggests that part of you knows that morality is intrinsically subjective, but you are so accustomed to arguing for its objective nature that you resist the notion...despite actually acknowledging it on more than one occasion.

              You really should just come over to the dark side.

              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              Just because moral truths are 'rooted in' or are first encountered in individually experienced values doesn't mean that those truths are identical to those values.
              I never claimed they were.

              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              Imagine that I value a political cause. It's rooted in my subjective values which are rooted in my experiential values. But if you ask me why I am devoting my life to this cause, the "Why" is ambiguous. You may be asking for my psychological motivation, in which case I would be right to answer as an ethical subjectivist and tell you about my subjective values. But you may also be asking "Why" in the sense of justification, in which case I would answer about the reasons why I think the cause is just and right and politically justified. If I shift into a justificatory mode, I cannot remain confined to JUST my private world of my own valuings/cherishings. I have to shift to a public mode of publicly justifiable (at least in principle) reasons that I must be ready and able to defend.
              And I would argue that if your explanation for "why you value Political Cause A" requires you to reference deeper, more closely held values, then your valuing of a particular political cause is not one of your core values and not what you are likely basing your moral principles on. As for the rest, I have emphasized the core of our disagreement by bolding/underline/italicizing your text. You have made the emphasized claim many times. You have not defended it adequately. You are essentially assuming that "justification" requires an objectively true basis. That is not true. I can explain my "justification" to anyone - but morality has to be justified to the self first and foremost. If I want to justify it to someone else, I may or may not succeed because the person I am speaking to may or may not value/cherish what I value/cherish. If they do - they will probably accept my "justification." If they do not, they will likely reject my justification. That's basically how it works.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-26-2019, 05:28 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 Jim B. View Post
                I don't know how useful the math/logic analogy is. Math truths would hold, arguably without any rational beings. Moral truths would not. they're emergent or synergistic entities like colors.
                We agree they would not exist without sapient minds to conceive them. I think we disagree on why. The laws of logic and mathematics are "recognized" by the sapient mind. They are not created by it. They are principles that describe the most basic realities of existence. If there are no sapient minds, there is no one to express these truths/realities, but they remain true/real. Moral principles are created/derived by the sapient mind. If there are no sapient minds to do this, they do not exist at all.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                My point is that your definition of morality is so broad and vacuous as to be virtually useless. It's like saying the function of language is to string lexical units into grammatically correct sentences. Formally correct but explanatorily empty. It's tailor-made for one purpose only: to fit your already agreed upon ethical theory.
                First, I have no idea what "function" means in this sentence. If you mean "how it operates," then your description of language is correct. If you mean "purpose" then it is not. The function (i.e., purpose) of language is to communicate.

                Likewise, the way morality function (i.e., how it operates) is for people to examine the consequence/intent of actions on the things a person most values/cherishes. The function (i.e., purpose) of morality is to protect/enhance these things.

                You are free to call this vacuous if you wish, but that does not make it so. The description is clear and to the point.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                "A definition that can potentially apply to everything ends up meaning essentially nothing."
                I have offered no such definition, so I leave these observations to you. Personally, I don't think they add much to the discussion.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                That's because you're hopelessly confused AND supremely confident in yourself. A natural scientist also never performs any action that does not spring form something she values/cherishes. A mathematician never performs any action that does not spring form something he values/cherishes. Therefore it follows that there is no scientific or mathematical finding that does not derive from individual valuings/cherishings.
                Setting aside the personal observations, as I have repeated underscored, morality is a term we reserve for those things we most value/cherish - not everything we value/cherish. Your argument here is flawed. It's akin to responding to the claim "I select the art in my home on the basis of my admiration for the art." by saying, "that is clearly not your basis, because there are many things you admire that you don't choose to be art in your home." The fact that I only choose the art I MOST admire for my home doesn't mean admiration is not the basis. Likewise, the scientist's and mathematician's actions are also based on what they value - but they do not use the term "morality" to describe the nature of these actions because they are not what they most deeply value/cherish in their lives. If it were, they would have moral codes about it. Likewise, the farmer values/cherishes his cows, but unless he is Hindu, he probably does not value/cherish them to the point of deriving moral principles designed to protect them.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                You're apparently confusing 'psychological derivation' with 'logical dependence' or 'entailment.' Everything I do psychologically derives to some degree from what I value/cherish, but it doesn't follow from this trivial psychological commonplace that everything I do therefore logically depends upon those psychological starting points.
                I never made this claim, so I have no response.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                "Honesty" is a necessary pre-condition for the functioning of language, rational discourse, communication, cooperation, interpersonal relationships, trust, society in general.
                Yes, it is.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                My being honest psychologically derives from my valuing it but like the political cause I referred to in the previous post, if you ask me why I value it, aside form other autobiographical and psychological facts about my background, I will give you some kind of jusitification that goes beyond my personal psychological reasons. I may answer in a deontological way, Kant's CI, or in the way sketched above, that it is necessary for the functioning of human life. Regardless of my meta-ethical justification, (unless of course I'm a subjectivist) the reasons I cite in this latter mode DO NOT depend upon my own attitudes. Nor do assume that the value of honesty is absolute in all cases.
                I'm not sure how you would make the case that "honesty is necessary for the functioning of human life." There are a lot of hermits and mountain men (and other solitary individuals) who would probably put that claim sorely to the test. You CAN, however, make the case that honesty is necessary for the proper functioning of community, or for successful relationships, etc. This would be true - and even objectively so. Note, however, that if you do not value "community" or "relationships," highly you won't give one whit about honesty. The slug occupying our highest office (in the U.S.) is a marvelous example of this. He values money, power, and prestige above everything, and honesty is sacrificed to achieving any of them because he has discovered that well-used lies can get him all three.

                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                I'll answer the rest later. I keep getting kicked off the internet!
                That must be very frustrating.
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-26-2019, 05:34 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
                  I truly sometimes wonder how you go from what I have said to your selected responses. You so regularly completely miss what I have actually said, and substitute something I have not, I am left wondering about your logical processes. Let me be as clear as possible: the fact that there is diversity of moral belief does not prove that there is no objective moral truth. The fact that there is significant unity of moral belief does not prove that morality is objective in nature. Consensus tells us little about the nature of morality. Morality is subjective because of what it fundamentally derives from: the things we value/cherish. Since morality derives from these things, and "aims" to protect/enhance/nurture them, and these things are subjective in nature: morality is itself subjective in nature.
                  You're doing the same thing to me. Where have I ever argued that because there's a consensus, therefore morality is objective?

                  What you actually do repeatedly is 'argue' by stipulation, ie "Morality JUST IS this way because I say so! And if I say it often enough and dogmatically enough, it will be logically persuasive and add up to an actual argument one day!"



                  Stick with your analogy. Conditional accepted: if you want to get to the post office, this is the direction/destination to take. Likewise, if you value human life and seek to protect/enhance it, you ought to hold the moral position "random killing is immoral." Now your task is to show that "wanting to go to the post office" is not a subjective thing. You see - this is what makes selecting my destination subjective: the fact that the choice is rooted in the destination I WANT to reach. That destination is subjectively selected, making my choice of route likewise ultimately subjective. And the same is true of morality.
                  Of course on one level everything I do is a "subjective thing" because I'm inside my own head and inextricably tied to my own subjective point of view. That's why I suggested that the way you present your case is hopelessly confused. It all depends upon what question you're answering and what explanatory/descriptive level you are on. Someone can always ask me "And WHY do you want to reach that destination?" The "WHY?" is ambiguous and calls for further clarification. Recall the political cause I've dedicated my life to. If someone asks me why I've done so, if I understand it as asking for jusitification, then I will answer about the reasons for why the cause is just and right, NOT about my psychological state. That's the wrong descriptive level. Both answers are "right" but the world is more complex than one explanatory/descriptive level can account for. Sorry.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    That is always a possibility.



                    You do not value these things "because they are experiences." If you did, you would value everything you experience. You most surely don't. You value particular experiences, for a wide variety of reasons.
                    You misreading me. I didn't say you're valuing these things BECAUSE they are experiences. Recall that I said that pain is also an experience and is NOT valued. So experiences are not valued per se.



                    Moral principles are derived from the specific things we experience that we come to value. Agreed. THAT is what makes morality subjective. What we value is subjective - so any morality that springs from it is likewise subjective. This sentence (on your part) suggests that part of you knows that morality is intrinsically subjective, but you are so accustomed to arguing for its objective nature that you resist the notion...despite actually acknowledging it on more than one occasion.

                    You really should just come over to the dark side.
                    Your logic doesn't follow. Derivation doesn't necessitate entailment.



                    I never claimed they were.
                    You claim they're identical to the subjective values they originate from, without warrant, IMO.



                    And I would argue that if your explanation for "why you value Political Cause A" requires you to reference deeper, more closely held values, then your valuing of a particular political cause is not one of your core values and not what you are likely basing your moral principles on. As for the rest, I have emphasized the core of our disagreement by bolding/underline/italicizing your text. You have made the emphasized claim many times. You have not defended it adequately. You are essentially assuming that "justification" requires an objectively true basis. That is not true. I can explain my "justification" to anyone - but morality has to be justified to the self first and foremost. If I want to justify it to someone else, I may or may not succeed because the person I am speaking to may or may not value/cherish what I value/cherish. If they do - they will probably accept my "justification." If they do not, they will likely reject my justification. That's basically how it works.
                    You misunderstand. When I shift into a justificatory mode, an objectively true basis is not assumed but aimed at, normatively. There's no guarantee than an actual consensus or an actual basis exists. But if in our collective aiming, our understanding intuits the plausibility of some kind of underlying reality, then we are justified in believing or at least acting as if this reality is there. And my justification to myself is actually to an ideal consensus within myself, not to me as Jim B, my psychological self. I shift into another mode. I shift from what I actually value into what I ought to value were I ideally situated as far as decision-making. It's along the lines of the distinction Harry Frankfurt drew up between first and second-order desires.

                    Comment


                    • Jim, I have to admit that your constant assumption that there is something wrong with my reading, my understanding, my ability to follow an argument, or my philosophical humility is getting tedious, as are the fairly regular references to my arrogance or unacceptable level of confidence. I put up with it from Seer for a long time before I said "enough," and I'm not going to do it again. So I'm telling you now - enough. If you cannot keep the discussion about the issues at hand without the personal jabs, I'll politely take my leave and you can claim the win. I have little/no desire to discuss with someone who feels a need to issue personal jabs every other post.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      You misreading me. I didn't say you're valuing these things BECAUSE they are experiences. Recall that I said that pain is also an experience and is NOT valued. So experiences are not valued per se.
                      Your post included the sentence, "I value love, life, consciousness intrinsically, for their own sake, because they're experiences." (emphasis mine) My response was about the inconsistency of your own post - and the incorrectness of this statement. I am not misreading you - but it may well be that you misspoke.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Your logic doesn't follow. Derivation doesn't necessitate entailment.
                      I did not claim or imply it did, so I have no further response.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      You claim they're identical to the subjective values they originate from, without warrant, IMO.
                      No, I did not do this at any point. I DID make the claim that you cannot arrive at an objective truth rooted in subjective premises. That does not make moral principles "identical to" the valuing/cherishing on which they are based.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      You misunderstand. When I shift into a justificatory mode, an objectively true basis is not assumed but aimed at, normatively.
                      No - it's not. I'm sorry Jim, but this assertion cannot be supported in any way I can see. When I provide a justification, I am "the action of showing something to be right or reasonable." That definition (which is not mine) does not include the words "objectively." You seem to want to insert it, which has you arguing in circles. If I justify a subjective thing, I justify it first and foremost to the self. If I wish to justify it to someone else, the other person would need to value/cherish similarly. If they do not - I cannot justify anything to them. If they do, then I can justify it against their valuing/cherishing. The same holds true for communities and societies.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      There's no guarantee than an actual consensus or an actual basis exists.
                      Correct.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      But if in our collective aiming, our understanding intuits the plausibility of some kind of underlying reality, then we are justified in believing or at least acting as if this reality is there.
                      The reality that is there is the communal inter-subjective norm. That is all that can be shown to exist.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      And my justification to myself is actually to an ideal consensus within myself, not to me as Jim B, my psychological self.
                      I have no idea what this sentence means.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      I shift into another mode. I shift from what I actually value into what I ought to value were I ideally situated as far as decision-making. It's along the lines of the distinction Harry Frankfurt drew up between first and second-order desires.
                      Jim, what you call first and second order desires are really nothing more than competing desires due to differing levels of valuing. Take Frankfurt's addict. Frankfurt describes the unwilling, wanton, and willing addict in terns of forming or not forming second order desires and the specific desire formed. Unwilling forms second order against taking drugs, willing forms second order for taking drugs, and wanton forms no second order desire whatsoever. It's a cute way to describe individuals, but not a necessary way. The same dynamic is easily explained by the ordering of valuing/cherishing. The unwilling addict values health above the pleasure of the high, but struggles against immediate versus long-term gratification. The willing and wanton addict simply values the pleasure of the high above health. Indeed, there is no real distinction between the wanton addict and the willing addict, except in Frankfurt's construct.
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-26-2019, 07:11 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
                        We agree they would not exist without sapient minds to conceive them. I think we disagree on why. The laws of logic and mathematics are "recognized" by the sapient mind. They are not created by it. They are principles that describe the most basic realities of existence. If there are no sapient minds, there is no one to express these truths/realities, but they remain true/real. Moral principles are created/derived by the sapient mind. If there are no sapient minds to do this, they do not exist at all.
                        Like I mentioned with colors, there's a third possibility, an emergent, synergistic reality. I am a theist, but I believe that God embodies/instantiates the moral law rather than creates it or is the source of it, unlike most theists on here. I believe morality is an inevitable consequence of rational sociality. Not to say that rational beings radically different from us wouldn't have somewhat different moral codes, ...But the upshot is I don't think we humans create morality any more than we create the color red.



                        First, I have no idea what "function" means in this sentence. If you mean "how it operates," then your description of language is correct. If you mean "purpose" then it is not. The function (i.e., purpose) of language is to communicate.

                        Likewise, the way morality function (i.e., how it operates) is for people to examine the consequence/intent of actions on the things a person most values/cherishes. The function (i.e., purpose) of morality is to protect/enhance these things.

                        You are free to call this vacuous if you wish, but that does not make it so. The description is clear and to the point.
                        It applies to all actions. It's a simplisitc quantifiable scale, but as I've tried to point out, morality doesn't reduce well to easy quantification. I hold my own survival as the most important thing to me, but that's not generally a moral consideration.



                        I have offered no such definition, so I leave these observations to you. Personally, I don't think they add much to the discussion.
                        It can apply to all actions or any action; it just depends on if there's enough oomph to the valuing behind it.



                        Setting aside the personal observations, as I have repeated underscored, morality is a term we reserve for those things we most value/cherish - not everything we value/cherish. Your argument here is flawed. It's akin to responding to the claim "I select the art in my home on the basis of my admiration for the art." by saying, "that is clearly not your basis, because there are many things you admire that you don't choose to be art in your home." The fact that I only choose the art I MOST admire for my home doesn't mean admiration is not the basis. Likewise, the scientist's and mathematician's actions are also based on what they value - but they do not use the term "morality" to describe the nature of these actions because they are not what they most deeply value/cherish in their lives. If it were, they would have moral codes about it. Likewise, the farmer values/cherishes his cows, but unless he is Hindu, he probably does not value/cherish them to the point of deriving moral principles designed to protect them.
                        Most scientists and mathematicians value their work above nearly everything else in their lives. As I've said, I value my continued survival. It's not necessarily the amount of valuing, as I that could be quantified anyway, but a person's sense of second-order valuing (to borrow a phrase from Harry Frankfurt), what I would value were I ideally situated in terms of knowledge, dispassion, etc.



                        I never made this claim, so I have no response.
                        Sure you have. That's your entire argument. I value/cherish X subjectively (psychological state); therefore this valuing/cherishing is morally true (logical dependence).



                        Yes, it is.


                        I'm not sure how you would make the case that "honesty is necessary for the functioning of human life." There are a lot of hermits and mountain men (and other solitary individuals) who would probably put that claim sorely to the test. You CAN, however, make the case that honesty is necessary for the proper functioning of community, or for successful relationships, etc. This would be true - and even objectively so. Note, however, that if you do not value "community" or "relationships," highly you won't give one whit about honesty. The slug occupying our highest office (in the U.S.) is a marvelous example of this. He values money, power, and prestige above everything, and honesty is sacrificed to achieving any of them because he has discovered that well-used lies can get him all three.
                        Show me a hermit who isn't a part of society in some way, who doesn't have language and hasn't been acculturated and can talk to him or herself and formulate short and long-range plans to themselves and uses tools and other artifacts. All of these things would require self-honesty and candor about one's abilities, resources, etc. Even Trump, to use your example, has to rely on honesty functionally to get his fat behind to the golf course on time or to reliably get his chocolate cake on time and to know that his lackeys will be doing his bidding. Even crime syndicates couldn't function a day without internal honesty.
                        Last edited by Jim B.; 09-26-2019, 07:18 PM.

                        Comment


                        • The "because they're experiences" referred to "intrinsic."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            Like I mentioned with colors, there's a third possibility, an emergent, synergistic reality. I am a theist, but I believe that God embodies/instantiates the moral law rather than creates it or is the source of it, unlike most theists on here. I believe morality is an inevitable consequence of rational sociality. Not to say that rational beings radically different from us wouldn't have somewhat different moral codes, ...But the upshot is I don't think we humans create morality any more than we create the color red.
                            Then we disagree. Red is another objectively real thing that the observer experiences if they have the right optical equipment to do so. Morality is an inevitable consequence of a sapient being that can act. When a self-aware being can reflect on action, it is inevitable they will seek to sort those actions into "ought" and "ought not." That sorting is to make it possible to achieve an ends. When the ends is to protect something dearly valued/cherished, we label those principles "morality." Morality is a subset of "preference." Although most moral norms are social in scope, morality is not restricted to sociality.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            It applies to all actions. It's a simplisitc quantifiable scale, but as I've tried to point out, morality doesn't reduce well to easy quantification. I hold my own survival as the most important thing to me, but that's not generally a moral consideration.
                            I submit that, if you have moral norms that pre-empt survival, then your own survival is NOT what you value/cherish most.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            It can apply to all actions or any action; it just depends on if there's enough oomph to the valuing behind it.
                            Yes...exactly. Somewhere on the continuum from trivial to profound, we begin to refer to the derived principles as "moral." The only difference is the degree to which we value/cherish, and there is no specific point where this language shifts - nor is there any fixed order in which we value. Generally, there are things we tend to value/cherish more (life, happiness, liberty) and things we tend to value/cherish less (pizza, houseplants, brand of dust broom). But some people value some things in significantly different order (e.g., the Hindu and farmer value the cow differently). What is a moral consideration for some is simply not to others and vice versa.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            Most scientists and mathematicians value their work above nearly everything else in their lives.
                            If that were true, they would have frame moral principles around it. I suspect you will find that when asked which they value more: life or mathematics, most mathematicians will say life. We all have our passions, Jim - but they seldom pre-empt the core things we value most.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            As I've said, I value my continued survival. It's not necessarily the amount of valuing, as I that could be quantified anyway, but a person's sense of second-order valuing (to borrow a phrase from Harry Frankfurt), what I would value were I ideally situated in terms of knowledge, dispassion, etc.
                            See above.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            Sure you have. That's your entire argument. I value/cherish X subjectively (psychological state); therefore this valuing/cherishing is morally true (logical dependence).
                            No. You are using "morally true" here in an odd way. What I value drives the moral principles I adopt. There is nothing objectively true about those moral values and there cannot be - because they are driven by subjective valuing/cherishing. I will see them as subjectively true. In much the same way, if I prefer pizza over all other foods, I will see "choosing restaurants that serve pizza" as a "good thing." Not morally good, mind you, because I do not value/cherish pizza highly on my overall scale.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            Yes, it is.
                            Not sure what this refers to.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            Show me a hermit who isn't a part of society in some way, who doesn't have language and hasn't been acculturated and can talk to him or herself and formulate short and long-range plans to themselves and uses tools and other artifacts. All of these things would require self-honesty and candor about one's abilities, resources, etc.
                            Your first statement sort of makes my point: honesty has impact on society and community. I was not speaking to the "semi-hermit" but to the true "mountain man independent" who disappears into the forest never to be seen again and lives independently. They have no need of "honesty" and will not have moral norms about it. Language is developed in the context of society, so someone who has been raised in society will take vestiges of it with them. That does not mean any of those vestiges are necessary in their specific situation. Find the stories of truly feral humans and see how much language they have developed.

                            And self-honesty is a bit of a different thing. I will not fracture the relationship with myself if I am self-deceived. I may compromise my ability to survive depending on the nature of the self-deception, but not necessarily. Your claim that honesty is required for human functioning simply has not been made.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            Even Trump, to use your example, has to rely on honesty functionally to get his fat behind to the golf course on time or to reliably get his chocolate cake on time and to know that his lackeys will be doing his bidding. Even crime syndicates couldn't function a day without internal honesty.
                            Really? How do you know it is honesty he is relying on and not fear?

                            But I quibble. I make no bones about the fact that a society functions on trust - and dishonesty erodes trust. Since most of us value/cherish relationships greatly and recognize this dynamic, we have moral norms about honesty. The relative strength of those moral norms will depend on what we value/cherish more or less. Even Trump is only dishonest about half the time. He simply (apparently) values some things more than relationship and a smooth functioning society. When those things are juxtaposed with relationships/society, honesty goes out the window.
                            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 Jim B. View Post
                              The "because they're experiences" referred to "intrinsic."
                              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
                                Again, take any one moral principle and show this in action. I would be interested in an example.
                                I have.



                                I engage in this discussion because it interests me, and sorting it through with people who disagree with me has actually deepened my own understanding of how morality works. Case in point: I used to engage in debates on same-sex intimacy with many friends and acquaintances. Sorting through these issues made me realize that I was not fully understanding the import of morality being subjective, and what it tells me about how to engage in moral discussions. I was not paying sufficient attention to the root basis for different people's moral positions, and was ending up making arguments and observations that had no possibility of of producing change.
                                But I thought you were claiming that discussion is impossible between people who value/cherish differently. You apparently value/cherish differently than I do and others on here. If you were on here merely diagnostically to measure how much one's values affected one's beliefs/arguments, I could understand your being here. But that's obviously not what you're doing. You are emphatically arguing for your position, which means you think that there are reasons that you can use to persuade others who value/cherish in a radically different way from you. Or at least you think you can rationally defend your position from objections from those who value differently. But how can there be rational disagreement between those whose values radically clash? In either case, it seems that your working assumption is that there can be rational disagreement, a realm of discourse that does not depend on (is logically independent of) the values of any of the participants.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 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