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

A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    This is the problem, not only will you not be able to demonstrate this objective standard - how do you then demonstrate that this standard is the morally correct one? Do we have a higher standard to by which we can judge those moral principles? And on and on. So instead of giving in to infinite regression you will have to claim that moral questions must stop somewhere - at this particular objective standard. But why not just stop at God's moral nature? And as far as I know moral truths only exist in, or are formulated, in minds - they have no independent existence.
    This is the problem with the problem you claim exists: You presuppose that no objective standards can be demonstrated. But you give no reason for claiming so apart from reasons that will make it impossible even for yourself to claim that anything is true about these matters.

    You ask for a “higher standards” to prove the standard right. This is in vain if the standard cannot be proven right (like you claim) and completely unnecessary if it can be proven right. When the question is answered, the questioning stops. There is no problem about infinite regress, if one does not presuppose that no answer can be given.

    The actual consequences if there is no moral reality
    To claim that no objective standard exists or can be proven right, is to make a claim about moral reality in and of itself. It is to say that moral reality is of such a form that only opinions can exist about it. That would have to go for rape, murder, concentration camps and so on. No one is allowed to hold anything but an opinion about it. No truth can be stated, is the claim, which by the way (contradictory) is held to be true. The statement has rather far reaching consequences. We will simply have nothing to say to any extremist claiming they have the right to kill us. Or perhaps we can say “I believe in a God, and he may even exist, but I cannot prove it, but if he does, he thinks you are wrong. But anyway, this is a moral theory I have in my head, it does not have an independent existence. God may have, but I cannot prove it.”

    From an existential point of view, it is impossible for any human being to hold consistently that all kinds of actions are equally good. You may call the above an appeal to emotion. That is in and of itself a claim. It might equally as well be founded in conscience, self reflection, basic ideas about fairness, empathy and the ability to reflect on the conditions of other people. These may not all be founded in a deep philosophical line of reasoning, but they are still a lot more than just emotions.

    It would make it impossible to value or disvalue anything, and it would make it impossible to act. From a philosophical perspective we are bordering at contradiction if we claim that it is a truth about moral reality that no such reality exists. This is why your claim that I should “give up” and go for relativism (at least if it is in its most relative form) is so completely misunderstood. Those who reject moral theories often go straight ahead to claim that one should not teach these theories, because they are untrue and it is unfair to ask anyone to follow them. However, then they already hold ideas about what is preferable, and since it is not only that they do not want to promote them but also that I should not, they are making it a rather universal claim in and of itself.

    No one decides
    We are moving closer to an important truth following this. To ask “who decides” if a universal moral truth is true is to ask a contradictory question, since if it is universal, then no one decides. If it is universalizable it cannot by its very nature be subjective. So rather, the correct answer would be could it be universalised.

    You make the claim: “And as far as I know moral truths only exist in, or are formulated, in minds - they have no independent existence.” Again we see a presupposition that what goes on in ethical thinking cannot be proven right. You claim any theory, and this includes your own (which you seem to forget), just goes on in the mind, and has no independent existence. How, then, can you make the claim that my theory is wrong, if no objective reality exists? You yourself, by doing so, make a statement about moral reality. And by the very same logic you can only claim that in your mind, God is the foundation of ethics, you cannot claim that statement has any independent existence or truth value. Unless you want to contradict yourself. So why should we even give it any serious consideration?

    A misunderstanding of subjectivity
    The goals of ethics may be subjective. If we go for science, which we can all agree is objective (or at least should be), the same would go for the goals behind scientific research. I have to have the aim to find out what the truth about a specific scientific matter is. I can then move on to find out, using scientific method, what the truth about it is. So my subjective goal is the reason for me finding anything instead of nothing, it determines the matter about which i obtain knowledge, but it does not determine what the truth of the matter is. If ethics concerns itself with a valid, universal and logical framework, then what is the difference? Seer's constant claim about everything being "subjective" seems to rely on a misunderstanding of the proces in which a subjective aim results in a logical and rational, fact based presentation.

    The foundation of the categorical imperative is not that Kant or anyone else had a personal feeling for the principle. If that was it, it would have no philosophical value. The reason it has force is that it can be universalized. We could imagine a universe in which everyone followed the principle: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

    We could have everyone doing that at the same time. We could have everyone not killing at the same time. So no one needs to “decide” that it can be universalized. We could not have everyone killing, stealing or using force at the same time. That would simply not be possible. To claim that it is a universal truth that you can kill, is to claim that it is ok to kill you. And is it even killing then?

    To simply claim you do not like killing, is a subjective statement. To realise the consequences it would have if everyone did so, and therefore to realise it cannot be universal, is a completely different matter. It is moving from a personal opinion of something that follows a line of reasoning that is rational, valid and universal. Which is why those who try to avoid it put themselves in a very bad position. So there is no need for a higher standard to determine whether some kinds of actions can be universalized while others cannot. It is easy to see.

    So the specific approach in ethics may be subjective. However:

    - Logic is not subjective
    - Validity is not subjective
    - The facts used in the line of reasoning are not subjective
    - It is not subjective whether anything can be universal or not

    So, your statement about a problem seems to include far more problems in and of itself.
    Last edited by Charles; 06-20-2017, 04:59 AM.
    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      God is self-definied Charles, we know that God is good because he declares it so.
      Just a few questions about this statement, seer.

      - How do we know that God is self defined?
      - Which self defined God are we talking about here?
      - Do we know that he even exists?
      - If we do not know that he exists, then how can we know that he is good or self defined?
      - And even if he exists and declares that he is good, then how can we know?
      - Why would you accept a circular statement about goodness in this context when circularity is a term used to describe a line of reasoning in which the conclusion is given beforehand?
      - Is it right to claim knowledge about something that takes belief?
      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Charles View Post
        I like the “there would have been other problems” statement, since I actually answered your questions and objections and there are still points in my answers that you have not answered. Anyway, I have said many times that it is ok to disagree, calling me a liar, however, is just way too low. In that regard it would have served you well to follow this universal moral truth: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”
        Charles, I'm not calling you a liar I'm saying you are deeply mistake, and wrong in your reasoning. Look lets cut to the chase - make a case here for a universal moral truth, any universal moral truth. The maxim you just referenced is not a universal truth it is one man's opinion on how we should view or practice ethics. Please make a deductive (non-circular) argument for an objective moral truth. Here, now. Thank you.

        You have had the attitude of knowing the answers to these questions and it is absolutely fair to point out, that you are dependent on God to exists in order for any of it to be true. If you cannot prove him here or somewhere else what you have got is a guess, a belief, a something that cannot be proven. There is no way you can claim it is universal, since you don’t know if it even exists. It’s a guess, and perhaps even God disagrees.

        And your points about all other kinds of areas in which you claim we do not have knowledge does not seem to strengthen your case. It rather seems to make even less likely that you are right.

        My point about influence is as simple as this: You claim any line of ethical thinking is influenced by different factors. Since you cannot prove your religion right I hold it absolutely fair to say that the views, norms and standards found in your religion are equally as likely to be influenced by these factors.
        Charles you are free to reject my position, but logically a universal (omnipresent) Creator could embody universal moral truths. Especially in light of the fact that ethics are mind dependent. There is nothing implausible about that concept - now present yours...
        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


        • #79
          Originally posted by Charles View Post
          A misunderstanding of subjectivity
          The goals of ethics may be subjective. If we go for science, which we can all agree is objective (or at least should be), the same would go for the goals behind scientific research. I have to have the aim to find out what the truth about a specific scientific matter is. I can then move on to find out, using scientific method, what the truth about it is. So my subjective goal is the reason for me finding anything instead of nothing, it determines the matter about which i obtain knowledge, but it does not determine what the truth of the matter is. If ethics concerns itself with a valid, universal and logical framework, then what is the difference? Seer's constant claim about everything being "subjective" seems to rely on a misunderstanding of the proces in which a subjective aim results in a logical and rational, fact based presentation.

          The foundation of the categorical imperative is not that Kant or anyone else had a personal feeling for the principle. If that was it, it would have no philosophical value. The reason it has force is that it can be universalized. We could imagine a universe in which everyone followed the principle: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

          We could have everyone doing that at the same time. We could have everyone not killing at the same time. So no one needs to “decide” that it can be universalized. We could not have everyone killing, stealing or using force at the same time. That would simply not be possible. To claim that it is a universal truth that you can kill, is to claim that it is ok to kill you. And is it even killing then?

          To simply claim you do not like killing, is a subjective statement. To realise the consequences it would have if everyone did so, and therefore to realise it cannot be universal, is a completely different matter. It is moving from a personal opinion of something that follows a line of reasoning that is rational, valid and universal. Which is why those who try to avoid it put themselves in a very bad position. So there is no need for a higher standard to determine whether some kinds of actions can be universalized while others cannot. It is easy to see.

          So the specific approach in ethics may be subjective. However:

          - Logic is not subjective
          - Validity is not subjective
          - The facts used in the line of reasoning are not subjective
          - It is not subjective whether anything can be universal or not

          So, your statement about a problem seems to include far more problems in and of itself.
          Tell me Charles, why did Kant need to appeal to a just God at the end of the road? And if all of humanity turned on itself tomorrow and destroyed itself would that be a universal moral wrong? Is our survival a universal moral good? And Charles you don't even buy into Kantian Ethics, you completely broke with his principle on lying, you jumped into the utilitarianism/consequentialism camp on that one. So you don't actually buy into his reasoning...

          We could have everyone doing that at the same time. We could have everyone not killing at the same time. So no one needs to “decide” that it can be universalized. We could not have everyone killing, stealing or using force at the same time. That would simply not be possible. To claim that it is a universal truth that you can kill, is to claim that it is ok to kill you. And is it even killing then?
          So what do we glean from this Charles - does this lead to the universal truth that all killing (of humans in this case) is wrong? Do you believe that?
          Last edited by seer; 06-20-2017, 07:27 AM.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Tell me Charles, why did Kant need to appeal to a just God at the end of the road?
            Already commented on that. Look at "Kant's points" in here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450176

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            And Charles you don't even buy into Kantian Ethics, you completely broke with his principle on lying, you jumped into the utilitarianism/consequentialism camp on that one. So you don't actually buy into his reasoning...
            I did use the word consequence. Like Kant would say that the consequence of saying you can always lie is that it leads to a contradiction. You do not become a utlilitarianist for saying so. And by the way, i never claimed to follow Kant strictly.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            So what do we glean from this Charles - does this lead to the universal truth that all killing (of humans in this case) is wrong? Do you believe that?
            Nope, this is where I differ from Kant to some degree. The “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” is the main principle for me. Formulation of practical guidelines is a lot harder. I already told you once I do not follow Kant strictly on these regards. Why do we always seem to have to start all over?
            Last edited by Charles; 06-20-2017, 07:47 AM.
            "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Charles, I'm not calling you a liar I'm saying you are deeply mistake, and wrong in your reasoning. Look lets cut to the chase - make a case here for a universal moral truth, any universal moral truth. The maxim you just referenced is not a universal truth it is one man's opinion on how we should view or practice ethics. Please make a deductive (non-circular) argument for an objective moral truth. Here, now. Thank you.
              I have already done so on told why it is the right way to do it and why it is possible.

              But you reject that it is even possible. I go through lots of reasoning in order to explain why your "one man's opinion" does not hold. And then you ignore all of it and ask me to do something i have already done. So you will have to prove my line of reasoning wrong. You cannot just igore it. You should be able to realise the absurdity of asking me to do it. If what I presented was just "one man's opinion" then so would the next thing. But that line of reasoning is based on a misunderstanding which i made very clear. Read it and comment on it, instead of just ignoring it. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

              By the way, you said a was lying. Don't try to run from it.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Charles you are free to reject my position, but logically a universal (omnipresent) Creator could embody universal moral truths. Especially in light of the fact that ethics are mind dependent. There is nothing implausible about that concept - now present yours...
              The "fact" that ethics are mind dependent is the one i just showed wrong. You seem to not even read it, or you just ignore it? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

              Basically if what you point to is God's opinion as a foundation for moral truths, then no, that would not do. Sorry. But there is always hope.
              Last edited by Charles; 06-20-2017, 07:51 AM.
              "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Charles View Post
                I did use the word consequence. Like Kant would say that the consequence of saying you can always lie is that it leads to a contradiction. You do not become a utlilitarianist for saying so. And by the way, i never claimed to follow Kant strictly.

                Nope, this is where I differ from Kant to some degree. The “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” is the main principle for me. Formulation of practical guidelines is a lot harder. I already told you once I do not follow Kant strictly on these regards. Why do we always seem to have to start all over?
                Sheesh Charles that is the point - you don't even find Kant's reasoning compelling enough to follow through on it! For goodness sake man, you don't even find universal moral truths here!
                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


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Charles View Post
                  I have already done so on told why it is the right way to do it and why it is possible.

                  But you reject that it is even possible. I go through lots of reasoning in order to explain why your "one man's opinion" does not hold. And then you ignore all of it and ask me to do something i have already done. So you will have to prove my line of reasoning wrong. You cannot just igore it. You should be able to realise the absurdity of asking me to do it. If what I presented was just "one man's opinion" then so would the next thing. But that line of reasoning is based on a misunderstanding which i made very clear. Read it and comment on it, instead of just ignoring it. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

                  By the way, you said a was lying. Don't try to run from it.
                  If I actually accuse you of lying I apologize - I did not have that intent. But no where in your post did you actually attempt to make a real argument for a real universal moral truth. And no where did you tell us how ethical concepts could exist apart from a mind. I'm sorry Charles, I have limited time so let's focus.



                  The "fact" that ethics are mind dependent is the one i just showed wrong. You seem to not even read it, or you just ignore it? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

                  Basically if what you point to is God's opinion as a foundation for moral truths, then no, that would not do. Sorry. But there is always hope.
                  Of course ethics are mind dependent, you use an example from Kant that you don't in the end even agree with - your subjective mind disagreed with his subjective mind.
                  Last edited by seer; 06-20-2017, 08:34 AM.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Sheesh Charles that is the point - you don't even find Kant's reasoning compelling enough to follow through on it! For goodness sake man, you don't even find universal moral truths here!
                    As much as we can disagree I will have to give you that this point is rather funny :-)

                    On a more serious note:

                    - I have never claimed to follow Kant all the way
                    - I have just showed how it is not subjective opinion that is relevant to moral truth

                    You can read it here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

                    And like I said, since you hold that all opinions on this are subjective, Gods subjective opinion might differ from yours. Sheesh seer :-)
                    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Charles View Post
                      As much as we can disagree I will have to give you that this point is rather funny :-)

                      On a more serious note:

                      - I have never claimed to follow Kant all the way
                      - I have just showed how it is not subjective opinion that is relevant to moral truth

                      You can read it here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

                      And like I said, since you hold that all opinions on this are subjective, Gods subjective opinion might differ from yours. Sheesh seer :-)
                      Yes Charles, I fully agree that God's subjective opinion can differ from my subjective opinion. Just as your subjective opinion differs from Kant's.
                      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


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Yes Charles, I fully agree that God's subjective opinion can differ from my subjective opinion. Just as your subjective opinion differs from Kant's.
                        Do you think god has a subjective opinion?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Do you think god has a subjective opinion?
                          Yes, I think His ethics are subjective to Him, they are His and He is the subject.

                          Subjective:

                          a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind:
                          b: relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristic or states
                          In other words God moral sense or moral law does not exist independently of Him.
                          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


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Yes, I think His ethics are subjective to Him, they are His and He is the subject.


                            In other words God moral sense or moral law does not exist independently of Him.
                            Well if we apply subjectivism to God, then God's subjectivism is the absolute objective truth.
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              Well if we apply subjectivism to God, then God's subjectivism is the absolute objective truth.
                              Well God's moral law would be objective to mankind.
                              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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Yes, I think His ethics are subjective to Him, they are His and He is the subject.
                                You said "gods subjective opinion." So, are morals gods subjective opinions, or are they objective facts?


                                In other words God moral sense or moral law does not exist independently of Him.
                                So, god itself has no choice in the matter concerning what is good or what is evil? That would mean that morals are independent of god, not dependent.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X