A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Jin-roh]

Yes, that we can only define God in the negative, what He is not (if I remember correctly). But Christ was God incarnate and can be defined by positive attributes. "He who has seen me has seen the Father" never mind the fact that God even in the Old Testament self-defines with positive attributes.

I'm glad you learned to google, Seer.

[seer]

First of all you are still not providing any line of reasoning, but only a bunch of claims. In a philosophical aproach this is not enough. It is not even close. You are not answering any questions at all. It just pure claims and dogmatism.

Secondly I have already pointed out that the part about objective standards will be touched upon in another thread because that makes sense in the aproach that I have. You are not going to decide in this thread.

I will be waiting, but I'm pretty sure you will not escape the trilemma - the only question left will be - which horn do you find most comfortable...

[seer]

I'm glad you learned to google, Seer.

Jin, I googled nothing - try getting off your high horse. BTW - was I wrong about the positive attributes of God/Christ?

[Charles]

All I have done so far is to claim that we all need to find or identify objective values no matter if we are religious or not. I have pointed to quite many reasons as to why that is the fact. You claim that we can somehow bypass this challenge. But apart from hearing you say you don't believe we will be able to find objective values, I am yet to see how your God is the solution to the problem of the founding of ethics. Even if I wont find any objective vaules, it would not prove you right, you'd be in the same boat. If you do not think so, then please give us arguments instead of claims.

[Jin-roh]

Okay so reading Leibneiz, his argument is not just about God's will, but also the potential arbitrariness of God's will. Meaning, why praise God for doing what is 'good' because he could have done anything else and it would be 'good.'

I finally dug up Descartes Meditations. In meditation three he goes over God. After wondering how he can think about God at all, and arguing that God can't be simple extension of his own hoped for perfection, or from his parents, or from his senses... and finally concluding that God exists. He writes:

God cannot deceive, according to Descartes. It seems then, that God could not call deception 'good.'

So while Descartes might've believed that goodness depended on God's will, I don't think he meant the kind of arbitrariness that was implied. There are things that God, in principle, cannot will or declare 'good'.

[Charles]

Okay so reading Leibneiz, his argument is not just about God's will, but also the potential arbitrariness of God's will. Meaning, why praise God for doing what is 'good' because he could have done anything else and it would be 'good.'

I finally dug up Descartes Meditations. In meditation three he goes over God. After wondering how he can think about God at all, and arguing that God can't be simple extension of his own hoped for perfection, or from his parents, or from his senses... and finally concluding that God exists. He writes:



God cannot deceive, according to Descartes. It seems then, that God could not call deception 'good.'

So while Descartes might've believed that goodness depended on God's will, I don't think he meant the kind of arbitrariness that was implied. There are things that God, in principle, cannot will or declare 'good'.

Interesting points. Once again we suffer from Leibniz not pointing to the source, so we do not know in what context Descartes made those claims and if they are presented accurately. However I do not think it changes anything regarding the main subject matter of this thread. I mean we could basically replace "Descartes" with "anyone" and the points would remain. We could even keep it in the form that instead of saying "Descartes said" we would say "if anyone said". The philosophical point would be the same. In the context of the history of philosophy what you point to is very interesting. And no matter Leibniz's source, you at least point to something that puts Descartes in a different light.

[seer]

All I have done so far is to claim that we all need to find or identify objective values no matter if we are religious or not. I have pointed to quite many reasons as to why that is the fact. You claim that we can somehow bypass this challenge. But apart from hearing you say you don't believe we will be able to find objective values, I am yet to see how your God is the solution to the problem of the founding of ethics. Even if I wont find any objective vaules, it would not prove you right, you'd be in the same boat. If you do not think so, then please give us arguments instead of claims.

Charles this is the problem as I see it. You don't believe that God is a sufficient ground for ethics, but why would your objective standard (if you could demonstrate it) be a sufficient grounding for ethics? Why would we assume that? Look, use Kant as an example, be believes that lying is always wrong (no matter the consequences). Let's assume that that is a universal moral truth. Where does that leave us? What happens if one violates this maxim and lies for personal gain? Well he my get in trouble, people may distrust him, but these consequences would be the same whether the objective standard existed or not. The standard itself carries no moral authority and makes no difference in practical application.

[Jin-roh]

Interesting points. Once again we suffer from Leibniz not pointing to the source, so we do not know in what context Descartes made those claims and if they are presented accurately. However I do not think it changes anything regarding the main subject matter of this thread. I mean we could basically replace "Descartes" with "anyone" and the points would remain. We could even keep it in the form that instead of saying "Descartes said" we would say "if anyone said". The philosophical point would be the same. In the context of the history of philosophy what you point to is very interesting. And no matter Leibniz's source, you at least point to something that puts Descartes in a different light.

The water is further muddied by the fact that terms like "perfect" and "infinite" and other words had technical meanings that are kind of lost.

I wouldn't call myself an advocate of Divine Command Theory, but it's worth noting that "God commands" doesn't necessarily entail arbitrariness, or scary hypotheticals.

[seer]

You could try to make it clearer why your God is the solution.

Charles because there is no better solution. Especially against an "objective standard" that has no inherent authority or practical application - in what rational world is that a sufficient ground for ethics? And that is one of the reasons why Kant, as referenced in the other thread, found it necessary to finally appeal to God.

In his Critique of Practical Reason, Immanuel Kant, who has traditionally not been seen as an advocate of Divine Command Theory (for an opposing view see Nuyen, 1998), claims that morality requires faith in God and an afterlife

[Charles]

Dear Seer

I will try to answer your two latest posts in this one reply. I hope that is going to work (not saying I expect us to agree :-)).

Still impossible to see how pointing to God is an answerGod constitutes moral values through his perfect nature
You have given no account as to why this is good. If it was of a very different kind, you would also just take that to be good, because you have made yourself dependent on a God. So, by accident, you believe in this God and the Muslim believes in another God. No one of you can give any reasonable explanation of what goodness is. You just blindly follow.

Man has to abide by those rules Even if we do not do so in this life, there is an afterlife in which justice will prevail.Kant's points

This makes the case that you could live a moral life but not having any reward. You could actually get into deep trouble, and it could cost you fame, money or whatever to do the right thing. I have yet to see anyone denying that. However, I see no changes in the content of morality in that approach either. The content is the same, and the foundation does not seem to be changed either, however an afterlife will help some people suffering the consequences of doing what is good in moral terms. I do not see how God suddenly changes the facts about what is wrong and wright in the quote you provided.

Keeping things straight

I have already pointed to the fact that the failure of human beings to comply makes no difference as to what they ought to do. I do not even see Kant making that point, his aim is to solve a problem regarding practical application, but it does not change what we need a practical application of. You are messing things up a bit in factual terms, though the question is fair enough.

Deontological ethics Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal lawOne should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated

[seer]

Charles I'm going to break this up a bit, we will start here. Though I thank you for the well thought out response.

Deontological ethics

First Charles, one could make a logical argument yet be completely wrong, utilitarian ethics is very logical, and consistent yet you or I who hold to deontological ethics would see utilitarianism as deeply mistaken in its premises and conclusion. These theories Charles are men's ideas on how we should live, yes they are subjective and logical. Moral error theory or moral anti-realism are also logical and consistent. So mere logic can't be the driving consideration to whether a moral theory is correct or not.

But Kant's view does not work on other grounds, he says that lying is always wrong (consequences be damned) - So would lying to the Nazis to save the Jews hidden in your basement be wrong? So if you lie to save a life it does not follow that you always lie, but lying, even to save a life, breaks the maxim.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal lawOne should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated

Here is the next problem; men have known the golden rule for centuries in various forms, yet men, often for a large part, don't follow it, or follow only superficially. Nothing that Kant says is going to change that. In other words deontological ethics have no real world consequences, consequences would be there, or not, despite Kantian ethics. There is no inherent authority in these theories, no consequences when violating them, that don't already exist.

Of course the fact that the idea is present in ethical reasoning throughout history in cultures who, at the time, had no or an extremely limited knowledge of each other, is interesting. Though it is not a philosophical proof, it is rather an indication that along these lines of thinking we are moving closer to something that is very hard to ignore.

Yes God and his moral law...; )

That is important in the context of Kant since a basic line of his reasoning is that reason sets ultimate commandments which we have already touched upon and seen some of the logical reasoning behind.

And again logic is no guarantee of truthfulness or rightness, never mind the fact that practically these theories have little effect - though if any theory has had an effect I would say that utilitarianism or pragmatism has had an effect over the past century - for the worse in my opinion.

As we have seen logic alone can not be the defining piece of the puzzle since each of these differing theories can and do offer logical justifications with internal consistencies. So now what?

[Charles]

So now what?

Thank you for your reply. I will get back to it and give you an answer.

What I find interesting, however, is that you only comment on the part in which I describe lines of reasoning to support my view. I also spend quite a lot of time arguing that your line of reasoning gives no answer at all. That part of it is something that you completely ignore. You can hardly claim I have not done something to describe my view (and its completely fair to disagree). However I find it a bit strange for you to completely ignore the part about your view, giving no answers, and then ask me to provide even more after I have already written quite much to explain my view. So let me ask you your own question: So now what?

And bear in mind that the topic is "a shared condition". If you find that wrong, please give us something to work with.

[seer]

Thank you for your reply. I will get back to it and give you an answer.

What I find interesting, however, is that you only comment on the part in which I describe lines of reasoning to support my view. I also spend quite a lot of time arguing that your line of reasoning gives no answer at all. That part of it is something that you completely ignore. You can hardly claim I have not done something to describe my view (and its completely fair to disagree). However I find it a bit strange for you to completely ignore the part about your view, giving no answers, and then ask me to provide even more after I have already written quite much to explain my view. So let me ask you your own question: So now what?

And bear in mind that the topic is "a shared condition". If you find that wrong, please give us something to work with.

See Charles, if I have this correct, what we are discussing here is what offer a firm foundation for ethics. You know what God and all that includes entails, what we need to discover is there any theory that can even come close. But...

God constitutes moral values through his perfect nature

You have given no account as to why this is good. If it was of a very different kind, you would also just take that to be good, because you have made yourself dependent on a God. So, by accident, you believe in this God and the Muslim believes in another God. No one of you can give any reasonable explanation of what goodness is. You just blindly follow.

Here we are not deciding between Gods, only if a moral god would offer a foundation for ethics. If goodness is God's nature then lining up with that nature or following His commands is what is good. Look at it this way, God as a Creator has an ethical teleology for the human person. He created us for a purpose and to live in a specific fashion. No such moral purpose exists if materialism is true, our ethical inclinations are at bottom the by product of the forces of nature - that have no moral intent or purpose - in other words it was by chance that we developed this way, it could have been quite different. And as far as blindly following I will admit that the teaching of Christ strongly resonates with me. Why do I need more than that? After all why does Kant's moral theory resonate with you more than the other ones which are equally logical and consistent?

No Charles, clarity is not the question. The question is about ontology.

Here again, you are bringing in your subjective reasoning, what is fair what isn't, what is just or not. But if such a God did exist your sense of morality could no more rise above His than a stream could rise above its source. And it also means that we do live in a just and moral universe, not an indifferent and amoral universe.

[Tassman]

See Charles, if I have this correct, what we are discussing here is what offer a firm foundation for ethics.

You know what God and all that includes entails, what we need to discover is there any theory that can even come close. But...

Irrelevant! See above.

[seer]

Tass, are you stalking me? Perv!