Is This Where Godless Philosophy Natural Leads?

[seer]

Well you're at least aware that this line of reasoning is wrong. That's progress.

Well no, I have never heard a rational case for the support of abortion from a so called bible believing Christian.

I dislike talking about semantics as much as you. However the problem is that sometimes a lot can depend on what way a word is taken to mean. As long as you stick to using a word in a specific way then it doesn't matter, but I've seen people use multiple different meanings of the same word in arguments, which is fallacious. And sometimes two different people don't mean the same thing with the same word.

True

And the point I made to you, here and elsewhere, is that you can have objective reasons for not being a monster even if you were a 'biological accident floating in a ultimately meaningless universe'. I'm not going to repeat the summary of my system of ethics, because that would be tedious, its just a matter of scrolling back in this debate to find it. The one relevant question you asked was whether 'happiness was arbitrary'. I suppose you mean "what makes a conceptual creature could be many different things, so why is one of them important"? See here where semantics comes in? Here I want to find out what you meant in order to respond appropriately to it. And my response is that it doesn't matter what makes that creature happy, as long as it had an objective way to finding out the nature of its happiness. After that it would have a way to objectively assess what it ought to do.

Yes, but this is exactly where I think your argument falls apart. Or I'm just not getting your drift. I mean do you agree that different things can make different people happy? So where exactly do you go from there? And I'm not sure how that answers the point of us being ultimately meaningless or not.

The concept of 'superior' is meaningless with a quantifier. Superior in what way? Superior at flying? Not unless you get into a jet. Superior at running? Try racing a cheetah. Superior at reasoning? Absolutely, no match. But saying 'superior' without something attached to it is meaningless. Its a way of reasoning that belongs in a different kind of metaphysics. A chain of being ala scholasticism with primitive matter at the bottom, then rocks and plants, then animals, then man, then the angels and then God.

But I told you why we are superior. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Speciesism could conceivably be as bad as racism. What if we found out that most cetaceans were not only self-aware but were capable of reasoning and communicated with each-other in a language we finally managed to decipher. I think then it would be much harder to defend the way they're treated. At the moment there isn't something like that, and so I won't go out of my way to protect all animals.

Ok...

[Leonhard]

Well no, I have never heard a rational case for the support of abortion from a so called bible believing Christian.

You're missing the point. Whether or not Christians who are pro-choicers are making good arguments for their case, or whether its consistent with their Christianity, they are in fact being pro-choice. And there are more of them than atheists. So the 'pro-choice' stuff mostly from Christians at the moment. Of course if atheists or non-religious people were to become the dominant number in society then you could talk about pro-choice being mainly a 'godless' position, but then I could point out that its because atheists outnumber Christians. However it is true that the ratio of pro-choice to pro-life are higher with self identified Christians than with atheists.

I think 'those ideas' that you say are mostly from 'the godless' do span something wider than merely pro-choice, but I haven't done a philosophical head count live-birth abortion discussions. Philosophers tend to be atheistic, though there's a recent growth of Christian philosophy, so if you're talking about philosophers of ethics they tend to either be traditional christians or non-christians. It might be that you're right, but I'm not sure. Sometimes headcounts on these things give surprising results.

I mean do you agree that different things can make different people happy?

I think there is some variance between humans, yes, but we're not aliens to eachother. We share far more similarities than distinctions.

So where exactly do you go from there?

The system I showed you starts with the individual. There are no collectives, there's only individuals and their choices. That individual wants to be happy, which is the thing he desires for its own sake. He finds out what makes him happy (objective research), finds out how to best to get to that state of being (which can be done rationally) and then have objective reasons for seeking out that state of being through those means. If there are similar people around him they can start cooperating; They all want similar things, and by encouraging certain behaviors in each other like not lying, they can make certain things easier like communication, which makes the achievement of their goals easier. The virtues are the best way to a happy and fulfilled life, and the vices gets in the way. These individuals can rationally explore which societies give people more opportunities to be happy (laissez-faire capitalism vs communism for instance), and encourage those societies that do and disrupt those that don't (though I think mostly you only have to do that with the one you live in).

And I'm not sure how that answers the point of us being ultimately meaningless or not.

And where's the problem for this system of ethics with this?

But I told you why we are superior.

Superior, in what way? Just saying 'superior' is meaningless. Its like saying "This book is more", "My left nostril is with", "I wear neither a tie", etc.. I don't believe in a great chain of being.

[seer]

You're missing the point. Whether or not Christians who are pro-choicers are making good arguments for their case, or whether its consistent with their Christianity, they are in fact being pro-choice. And there are more of them than atheists. So the 'pro-choice' stuff mostly from Christians at the moment. Of course if atheists or non-religious people were to become the dominant number in society then you could talk about pro-choice being mainly a 'godless' position, but then I could point out that its because atheists outnumber Christians. However it is true that the ratio of pro-choice to pro-life are higher with self identified Christians than with atheists.

Of course, one would have to wonder how one defines a Christian. Does calling yourself a Christian make you one? I would think that a Christian is one who follows the teachings and example of Christ as revealed in the New Testament.

I think 'those ideas' that you say are mostly from 'the godless' do span something wider than merely pro-choice, but I haven't done a philosophical head count live-birth abortion discussions. Philosophers tend to be atheistic, though there's a recent growth of Christian philosophy, so if you're talking about philosophers of ethics they tend to either be traditional christians or non-christians. It might be that you're right, but I'm not sure. Sometimes headcounts on these things give surprising results.

Ok, so far I have only seen godless men like the authors in this thread and men like Peter Singer making these arguments.

I think there is some variance between humans, yes, but we're not aliens to eachother. We share far more similarities than distinctions.

The system I showed you starts with the individual. There are no collectives, there's only individuals and their choices. That individual wants to be happy, which is the thing he desires for its own sake. He finds out what makes him happy (objective research), finds out how to best to get to that state of being (which can be done rationally) and then have objective reasons for seeking out that state of being through those means. If there are similar people around him they can start cooperating; They all want similar things, and by encouraging certain behaviors in each other like not lying, they can make certain things easier like communication, which makes the achievement of their goals easier. The virtues are the best way to a happy and fulfilled life, and the vices gets in the way. These individuals can rationally explore which societies give people more opportunities to be happy (laissez-faire capitalism vs communism for instance), and encourage those societies that do and disrupt those that don't (though I think mostly you only have to do that with the one you live in).

This is what I don't get. You don't need science to know what makes a man happy - just ask him. Can you give me a real world example of something that is desired for its own sake?

And where's the problem for this system of ethics with this?

Listen Leonhard, it is no big deal creating a system of ethics - like I said if we all followed the golden rule we would have heaven on earth, the problem is - men don't. Or not enough do. And wouldn't any system of ethics have to take into consideration what we are by nature? I mean if we really are meaningless bags of chemicals floating in an indifferent universe so what if some bags of chemicals wipe out other bags of chemicals?

Superior, in what way? Just saying 'superior' is meaningless. Its like saying "This book is more", "My left nostril is with", "I wear neither a tie", etc.. I don't believe in a great chain of being.

Leonhard, I'm a theist - so I believe that we have value to God that other animals do not.

[Leonhard]

Ok, so far I have only seen godless men like the authors in this thread and men like Peter Singer making these arguments.

Fair enough, so have I, but you were the one claiming that most of it was coming from 'godless' philosophers and you never actually backed it up. It seemed as if you were expecting us to do that.

This is what I don't get. You don't need science to know what makes a man happy - just ask him.

I believe people can be mistaken about what makes them happy. Or people can know what makes them happy but systematically choose the things that won't make them happy. You don't think that a person can be mistaken about the nature of happiness, or what to do to achieve it?

Can you give me a real world example of something that is desired for its own sake?

Happiness isn't a real world example? Friendship is another example, read Lysis by Plato.

Listen Leonhard, it is no big deal creating a system of ethics

Uh, you are contradicting yourself now. You challenged me to give an objective godless system of ethics, thereby implying that is a big deal, and that's what I countered.

like I said if we all followed the golden rule we would have heaven on earth, the problem is - men don't. Or not enough do.

Why is this a problem for that system of ethics? If people make bad decisions they're not likely to attain what's good. If this were an objection, then your system of ethics could be knocked down by saying 'theres someone over there who just lied, and he did it knowing it was wrong'. So what?

And wouldn't any system of ethics have to take into consideration what we are by nature?

If it touches upon the question of human happiness? Yes.

I mean if we really are meaningless bags of chemicals floating in an indifferent universe so what if some bags of chemicals wipe out other bags of chemicals?

Let's work this out in that ethics I proposed. I'll accept the statement 'I am a meaningless bag of chemicals'. Figuratively of course, since I'm not a bag. Some other similar creature wants to wipe me out. Part of my happiness is not being afraid that someone will wipe me out, and being able to live free of that fear. All else being equal a state of being without that fear would be preferable to one with that fear. I'll then see if there's a way of removing or diminishing this fear. Self-defense is one way and would be better at achieving the goal than doing nothing at all. I know of no better way (lets say diplomacy, escape, police etc were out of question), therefore I'll assume, in the absence of better methods, that this is the best method for achieving that end. If self-defense is the best way of achieving the end of a state of being where I don't have to fear other 'meaningless bags of chemicals' from wiping me out, then by the fundamental axiom I ought to use self-defense to protect myself so that I wouldn't fear being wiped out.

This is summary of course and be unwrapped endlessly, and should in a proper discussion. I made it artificially simple.

Leonhard, I'm a theist - so I believe that we have value to God that other animals do not.

Then we're 'superior than other animals in terms of value to God'. Not simple 'superior'.

[seer]

Fair enough, so have I, but you were the one claiming that most of it was coming from 'godless' philosophers and you never actually backed it up. It seemed as if you were expecting us to do that.

What? Do you know of any Christian philosophers making such arguments? So far it is all coming from atheists.

I believe people can be mistaken about what makes them happy. Or people can know what makes them happy but systematically choose the things that won't make them happy. You don't think that a person can be mistaken about the nature of happiness, or what to do to achieve it?

Well how to achieve it is one thing, but do you really believe that you know better than the person as to what makes him happy? Isn't that a bit arrogant? Well actually more than a bit.

Happiness isn't a real world example? Friendship is another example, read Lysis by Plato.

Ok, so what does science have to do with the idea that friendship makes us happy? Don't we already know these things?

Uh, you are contradicting yourself now. You challenged me to give an objective godless system of ethics, thereby implying that is a big deal, and that's what I countered.

"Objective" is the key word here. Where have you offered an objective system of ethics that does not depend on subjective wants or desires?

Why is this a problem for that system of ethics? If people make bad decisions they're not likely to attain what's good. If this were an objection, then your system of ethics could be knocked down by saying 'theres someone over there who just lied, and he did it knowing it was wrong'. So what?

No, no, not the point. Who decides what is "good?"

Let's work this out in that ethics I proposed. I'll accept the statement 'I am a meaningless bag of chemicals'. Figuratively of course, since I'm not a bag. Some other similar creature wants to wipe me out. Part of my happiness is not being afraid that someone will wipe me out, and being able to live free of that fear. All else being equal a state of being without that fear would be preferable to one with that fear. I'll then see if there's a way of removing or diminishing this fear. Self-defense is one way and would be better at achieving the goal than doing nothing at all. I know of no better way (lets say diplomacy, escape, police etc were out of question), therefore I'll assume, in the absence of better methods, that this is the best method for achieving that end. If self-defense is the best way of achieving the end of a state of being where I don't have to fear other 'meaningless bags of chemicals' from wiping me out, then by the fundamental axiom I ought to use self-defense to protect myself so that I wouldn't fear being wiped out.

But why would you need a system of ethics to discover this. People do this already. It just looks like sound reasoning. And what is "objective" about any of this?

Then we're 'superior than other animals in terms of value to God'. Not simple 'superior'.

A distinction without a real difference...

[Leonhard]

What? Do you know of any Christian philosophers making such arguments? So far it is all coming from atheists.

Fallacy lurking here. If I didn't know of any Christians philosophers arguing similarly, that wouldn't mean that there aren't any Christian philosophers doing that. It would just mean that I don't personally know of any. And I haven't done a headcount or spent time reading philosophy of ethics on the issue of abortion so I can't say. So far your argument has been "I've heard some atheist say X, and I don't know any Christians who say X, therefore only atheists say X" and I'm less than certain about it, but I haven't exactly attacked this point either.

Well how to achieve it is one thing, but do you really believe that you know better than the person as to what makes him happy? Isn't that a bit arrogant? Well actually more than a bit.

Funny, the Greeks thought it was a sign of wisdom. In some cases I do think, yes, that I know what makes a person better than they do themselves. Happiness is such a complex topic that there's plenty that science hasn't covered yet. And we don't need to have a science of joy in order to have some first-order knowledge of happiness by intuition and introspection. The point is though that we can study happiness come to know objective precisely what makes us happy. That we start out with personal knowledge is irrelevant. All that needs to be the case for the system to be objective, is for the knowledge to attainable by objective means, and for the ethical decisions to follow uniquely from that knowledge. So far that seems to be the case with this system and you haven't offered a single counterexample. This is all gonna be a 'semantic discussion' about what you're willing to call objective.

Ok, so what does science have to do with the idea that friendship makes us happy? Don't we already know these things?

You asked me to give an example of something we desire for its own sake. Did I do that or not? That's the relevant question.

"Objective" is the key word here. Where have you offered an objective system of ethics that does not depend on subjective wants or desires?

Because what makes a person happy is something that can objectively known. It doesn't depend on his opinion about it. If what made a person happy did depend on what a person thought made him happy, then yes it would be subjective. However it isn't. The circumstances that makes a person happy are independent of his opinions about it. A person could live a full life thinking that a big car, a large house, an important title and a lot of power is what would make him happy, when in fact it was the virtuous life, doing something that felt worthwhile, helping others and such things that made him happy. His experience of those things are subjective of course, but it would be an objective fact that those things are what made him happy. If he knew this, then he would objective know what things would bring him to the state of happiness and could start actively seeking those things.

No, no, not the point. Who decides what is "good?"

You, and you're either using the best way of doing this, or something lesser.

But why would you need a system of ethics to discover this. People do this already. It just looks like sound reasoning. And what is "objective" about any of this?

Can't you remember the question you gave me? You asked me to consider that people were just 'meaningless bags of chemicals' and then to consider why I should care if one such creature wiped out another. I gave an example where such a creature should care, namely he was the one being wiped out and his happiness depended on not being afraid of being wiped out. I have already stated what's objective about it.

A distinction without a real difference...

Its a minor but important point. Something that bugs me. Its like hearing a person asking 'Am I too fat?'. Too fat for what? Is my response. I know what they mean, they want to know if they're unattractive, but I'm a pedant and its just something that annoys me.

[seer]

Because what makes a person happy is something that can objectively known. It doesn't depend on his opinion about it. If what made a person happy did depend on what a person thought made him happy, then yes it would be subjective. However it isn't. The circumstances that makes a person happy are independent of his opinions about it. A person could live a full life thinking that a big car, a large house, an important title and a lot of power is what would make him happy, when in fact it was the virtuous life, doing something that felt worthwhile, helping others and such things that made him happy. His experience of those things are subjective of course, but it would be an objective fact that those things are what made him happy. If he knew this, then he would objective know what things would bring him to the state of happiness and could start actively seeking those things.

Leonhard, since my time is limited today and since this is the crux of the argument let's camp here. I'm really not sure what this means. Ok, if a despot believed that power and wealth made him happy, we can know objectively that power and wealth makes him happy? Is that what you are saying? Or is it wrong for him to believe that power and wealth makes him happy, he is mistaken about what makes him happy, and you really know what would make him happy? It is not clear to me.

[Leonhard]

Ok, if a despot believed that power and wealth made him happy, we can know objectively that power and wealth makes him happy? Is that what you are saying? It is not clear to me.

This isn't what I propose. I don't think we judge what happiness consists of simple by asking people what they think makes them happy. A despot might think that his life made him happy, but he might be seriously mistaken. There's a famous Greek legend called The Sword of Damocles. Its usually used to contrast a humble virtuous life with that of the power and respect wielding life of a dictator.

How we go about discovering what happiness consists of, is something that's such a wide and complex topic that I can't unpack that in a thread. I think it is possible, and there is an ongoing scientific enterprise exploring the question of joy, and a rich philosophical history about the subject. I'm well within the consensus of history on this subject. However if you can give a successful argument why it should be impossible to have objectively knowledge about happiness then in all fairness that would be sufficient to refute this system of ethics. Or at least just reduce it to opinion. Though I'm not sure you'd have objective reasons to do anything in that case.

[seer]

This isn't what I propose. I don't think we judge what happiness consists of simple by asking people what they think makes them happy. A despot might think that his life made him happy, but he might be seriously mistaken. There's a famous Greek legend called The Sword of Damocles. Its usually used to contrast a humble virtuous life with that of the power and respect wielding life of a dictator.

How we go about discovering what happiness consists of, is something that's such a wide and complex topic that I can't unpack that in a thread. I think it is possible, and there is an ongoing scientific enterprise exploring the question of joy, and a rich philosophical history about the subject. I'm well within the consensus of history on this subject. However if you can give a successful argument why it should be impossible to have objectively knowledge about happiness then in all fairness that would be sufficient to refute this system of ethics. Or at least just reduce it to opinion. Though I'm not sure you'd have objective reasons to do anything in that case.

Well yes Leonhard the despot may be seriously mistaken or he may not. Perhaps he already tried the humble virtuous life and found it lacking or unfulfilling. So again, I'm not sure what you are getting at - are you saying that there may be one thing (like the humble virtuous life) that would make all men happy if only they tried it?

[Leonhard]

Well yes Leonhard the despot may be seriously mistaken or he may not.

But if you agree with this, then what is your point? If it is at all possible to objectively state that the despots actions aren't leading to his greatest happiness, then by the system I've outlined for you it his actions would be wrong; A virtuous life would have made him happier. And he could come to know this if he rationally examined his life. Of course human irrationality would make that more difficult.

Perhaps he already tried the humble virtuous life and found it lacking or unfulfilling.

We can always honestly disagree about the nature of the happy life. That's a factual disagreement. Its something that can be discussed, but my system of ethics isn't dependent on the nature of happiness being a certain way. If being a horrible nasty despot was the greatest joy in the world and attainable by voluntary choices then that's what I would go for. So far I haven't seen anything better than voluntarily living a virtuous life.

Sell me a crime Seer. Tell me why I should go out and murder a homeless man, steal from the tiller or rape someone walking home. Do it in a new thread, since this is getting off topic. I think I've already answered your question about where natural philosophy leads: There is no nescessary connection between natural philosophy and the viewpoints in the article. Not anymore than there is between Christianity and pro-war and torture attitudes.

are you saying that there may be one thing (like the humble virtuous life) that would make all men happy if only they tried it?

If a person had the opportunity to sample living a virtuous life and being a virtuous character and compare it to living a criminal life and being a lecherous and viceful person, the virtuous life would always be preferable. Sword of Damocles again. Also your actions make you the person you are. If you've lived a life making good choices, instilling good habits and had a good upbringing you'll have an easier time living a virtuous life. The more vices you engage in, and the more often, the easier it becomes to engage in that vice and the harder not to engage in it. You don't just get to lie once and walk away. Every lie makes it easier to lie, making you more a lier and less of an honest person.

[seer]

But if you agree with this, then what is your point? If it is at all possible to objectively state that the despots actions aren't leading to his greatest happiness, then by the system I've outlined for you it his actions would be wrong; A virtuous life would have made him happier. And he could come to know this if he rationally examined his life. Of course human irrationality would make that more difficult.

My point is that the despot may be quite happy being despot. And you coming along and suggesting that if he gave it all up for a virtuous life would make him happier is what is irrational here. I'm sorry Leonhard could see approaching Kim Jong-un with this idea? Than that is the fatal in your theory - you don't get to decide for other what makes them happiest. That will forever remain subjective to/for the person.

We can always honestly disagree about the nature of the happy life. That's a factual disagreement. Its something that can be discussed, but my system of ethics isn't dependent on the nature of happiness being a certain way. If being a horrible nasty despot was the greatest joy in the world and attainable by voluntary choices then that's what I would go for. So far I haven't seen anything better than voluntarily living a virtuous life.

I have no idea what this means. First you say that we can honestly disagree about the nature of the happy life, then turn around and say that your system doesn't depend on that little fact - of course it does, what else would it depend on? And that very point is the eternally subjective thing. Living a virtuous life makes you happy, being a despot makes Kim Jong-un happy.

Sell me a crime Seer. Tell me why I should go out and murder a homeless man, steal from the tiller or rape someone walking home. Do it in a new thread, since this is getting off topic. I think I've already answered your question about where natural philosophy leads: There is no nescessary connection between natural philosophy and the viewpoints in the article. Not anymore than there is between Christianity and pro-war and torture attitudes.

Well sure, an atheist could also be a humanist, but like I said these ideas are coming from the godless, I don't see them coming from believers. And I do, in the end think, it ties into our view of human nature. Christians and atheists have very different ideas of what man is.