Originally posted by seer
View Post
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
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
Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI think my point is clear. Whether one finds homosexuality disgusting or immoral on its face, with no other rationale, is just as substantive (or not) as one who accepts the behavior as moral just because he happened to be born in a particular culture at a particular time. Throwing out the idea that a rationale is necessary does not change that, since reasons are often just as subjective and culturally relative.
1) First, as an atheist, there is essentially no other choice. Even if you COULD make the case that a god's (such as the one you believe in) moral code is universal and absolute, you would then have to show that this god actually exists. From the perspective of a belief that there is no such being, and yet experiencing the sense of "right" and "wrong" we call conscience, I am left to look for its source. I find that source in basic reasoning colored by cultural, communal, and familial influences.
2) You have not really made the case that an "objective" or "universal" or "absolute" moral framework is better than a subjective one. From what I can see, most of your posts amount to, "a subjective/relative/individual moral framework is not better than an objective/universal/absolute moral framework because it is not objective/universal/absolute." Hopefully you can see the circularity of assuming that objective/universal/absolute is the metric against which all moral frameworks are to be measured, and then finding any other framework "less."
I mentioned this at the start of our discussion. Your OP, as best I could tell, was looking for how someone without a theistic approach could form a rational ethical framework. I have provided one. From start to pretty much end, your assessment has almost continually been an attempt to judge that framework from the perspective of your own, rather than to assess it for internal consistency. If you are going to understand an opposing point of view, you have to start my "accepting" its presuppositions.
On a practical note, I would also like to point out that there does not seem to be a lot of effective difference between our two approaches. I see wide variation between cultures and groups in the moral code that is followed by both religious and nonreligious people. I see wide disagreement about what is and is not moral in both groups. Functionally, there is not a lot of difference between groups that have differing moral codes based on cultural/communal/familial influences, and groups that have differing moral codes based on differing interpretations of the "absolute" moral code they claim exists.Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-08-2017, 07:32 AM.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 Post1) First, as an atheist, there is essentially no other choice. Even if you COULD make the case that a god's (such as the one you believe in) moral code is universal and absolute, you would then have to show that this god actually exists. From the perspective of a belief that there is no such being, and yet experiencing the sense of "right" and "wrong" we call conscience, I am left to look for its source. I find that source in basic reasoning colored by cultural, communal, and familial influences.
2) You have not really made the case that an "objective" or "universal" or "absolute" moral framework is better than a subjective one. From what I can see, most of your posts amount to, "a subjective/relative/individual moral framework is not better than an objective/universal/absolute moral framework because it is not objective/universal/absolute." Hopefully you can see the circularity of assuming that objective/universal/absolute is the metric against which all moral frameworks are to be measured, and then finding any other framework "less."
I mentioned this at the start of our discussion. Your OP, as best I could tell, was looking for how someone without a theistic approach could form a rational ethical framework. I have provided one. From start to pretty much end, your assessment has almost continually been an attempt to judge that framework from the perspective of your own, rather than to assess it for internal consistency. If you are going to understand an opposing point of view, you have to start my "accepting" its presuppositions.
On a practical note, I would also like to point out that there does not seem to be a lot of effective difference between our two approaches. I see wide variation between cultures and groups in the moral code that is followed by both religious and nonreligious people. I see wide disagreement about what is and is not moral in both groups. Functionally, there is not a lot of difference between groups that have differing moral codes based on cultural/communal/familial influences, and groups that have differing moral codes based on differing interpretations of the "absolute" moral code they claim exists.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostCarp, there are a lot of well thought out arguments for the existence of God, you don't find them compelling, I do.
Originally posted by seer View PostWell no, the bottom line, like I explained, is that if universal moral truths don't exist, no behavior or ethical system is objectively (and I will use objective in this instance) better or more valid than its opposite. We either ultimately live in a just and moral universe or an unjust and amoral universe. And like I also mentioned this also bears on what man is by nature, the haphazard by product of the forces of nature or do we have an objective worth and purpose.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut internal consistency is meaningless when it comes to ethics, that does not tell us what is right or wrong or even why. The Nazis were consistent on their views of the Jews, the Communists were rational concerning their view on dissidents and how to deal with them Both views lead to the slaughter of millions. So consistency is not, and can not, be the arbiter of what is good or not.
Originally posted by seer View PostI generally agree with this. There is a difference between ontology and epistemology. Do these universal moral truths exist and how do we know them.Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-08-2017, 09:58 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostCarp, there are a lot of well thought out arguments for the existence of God, you don't find them compelling, I do.
Well no, the bottom line, like I explained, is that if universal moral truths don't exist, no behavior or ethical system is objectively (and I will use objective in this instance) better or more valid than its opposite. We either ultimately live in a just and moral universe or an unjust and amoral universe. And like I also mentioned this also bears on what man is by nature, the haphazard by product of the forces of nature or do we have an objective worth and purpose.
But internal consistency is meaningless when it comes to ethics, that does not tell us what is right or wrong or even why. The Nazis were consistent on their views of the Jews, the Communists were rational concerning their view on dissidents and how to deal with them Both views lead to the slaughter of millions. So consistency is not, and can not, be the arbiter of what is good or not.
I generally agree with this. There is a difference between ontology and epistemology. Do these universal moral truths exist and how do we know them.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostOnly metaphysical arguments, none supported by scientific knowledge.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostMorals don’t exist for their own sake, as your argument seems to imply, they have a purpose. They were naturally built into us, because they were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWhat works is the arbiter of what is good or not for a particular society.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe natural evolution of human behaviour ensures the survival of the family and community so that the human species survives. Any “universal moral truths” that may be claimed to exist must embody these natural qualities.
The argument more or less rests on the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods. If such a being exists, that it would be able to "create" humans with such a psychological construct as "conscience" and code it (much as a programmer codes software) with a particular moral code is not beyond the pale. That this would give this being "moral authority" is a separate question, for reasons discussed previously. If no such being exists, then we need to look elsewhere for the source of "conscience," and the evolutionary process is a fairly obvious candidate.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 PostHow exactly would you submit a proposed metaphysical being to scientific proofs? There are some things science is simply not well suited to, and this would appear to me to be one of them.
I'm always nervous about language that seems to subscribe intentionality to a natural process like evolution. But I take your meaning. Most people focus on the "competition" aspect of evolution (i.e., survival of the fittest), but there is more recent research into the coorperative aspect of evolution - not just in the human species, but others as well - where the dynamics of cooperation enhance the survivalbility of the community or species as a whole, thereby enhancing the survivability of its members.
I'm not sure it's quite that simple. I'll have to think about that. I'm not sure how I make "what works" explain the phenomenon of self-sacrifice, individually or communally.
I'm not sure "must" is appropriate here, if you are talking "necessity." The fact is, the most commonly held moral positions within the human community DO embody these principles. They are so widely held, they have been encoded into many religions as "universals" and attributed to their gods. But then, from their perspective, they are universals because their god has imbude humanity with these principles in the phenomenon of conscience.
The argument more or less rests on the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods. If such a being exists, that it would be able to "create" humans with such a psychological construct as "conscience" and code it (much as a programmer codes software) with a particular moral code is not beyond the pale. That this would give this being "moral authority" is a separate question, for reasons discussed previously. If no such being exists, then we need to look elsewhere for the source of "conscience," and the evolutionary process is a fairly obvious candidate.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThis I know, Seer. I do not, as you well know. Perhaps a discussion for another time.
You really don't see it, do you? You do not see how you continue to assess subjective morality from within an objective framework. You cannot seem to help yourself. Correcting your statement to reflect what you are actually saying, it is: if universal moral truths don't exist, no behavior or ethical system is objectively (and I will use objective in this instance) better or more objectively valid than its opposite. My moral framework is more valid than any other to me. Someone else will find their's more valid to them than mine. They are, after all, subjective. You continue to try to measure them against an objective worldview - which is not rational - IMO. You cannot determine the inconsistency of a worldview without first accepting its presuppositions. Now if you want to object to the presuppositions, that is the discussion aluded to above.
Consistency within a personal framework can. It cannot (yet again) from some objective framework because such a thing does not exist, or at least has not been shown to exist in this discussion.
Apparently - poorly. Or, as I believe, they actually do not exist and what they are is actually cultural/religious norms projected on a supreme being to lend them authority. If I were to do what you are doing, and assess your moral framework from within mine - that is what I see.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOK, fair enough...
Originally posted by seer View PostWell no, I'm just pointing out what logically follows from your position.
But you keep coming back to the absence of a lack of "absolute" validity, as if it's a problem - a shortcoming. It's only a shortcoming to you because you have already decided (without actually showing) that an absolute/universal moral framework is "better." So you keep repeating it, over and over - without ever showing it to be true. This is what I mean when I note you are assessing the subjective moral framework from within the bounds of the objective world - and you are making assertions you have not supported.
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Carp, consistency does not and can not tell us what is moral. The Nazi or Communist could have perfectly consistent ethical systems - but do they tell us anything about what is right or wrong. Of course they don't. It just tells us they are consistent.
Again, Seer - you are objecting to the subjective moral framework because it's not objective - you are not, IMO, arguing rationally.
But I'm beginning to think this is not something you are going to be able to see.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd from my worldview I would say that sin has clouded our moral judgement and understanding.
The fact is that, if there is a single absolute moral framework, there are apparently a lot of very devout people out there with opposing moral positions. They all think they are aligned on the "absolute." So how am I to determine which of you is aligned to the "right one?" In fact, how are you to determine that? You believe YOU are aligned correctly, probably to the core of your being. But other very devout people are just as convinced as you are that THEY are acting and choosing morally and you have taken a bad turn.
Amazing how, even with a supposed "absolute" to provide guidance, we end up with subjective moral frameworks. Yours is simply your interpretation of the "absolute" you think exists. Mine simply does not have the absolute that requires interpretation.Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-10-2017, 10:47 AM.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 PostNo - you are continually harping on something I have already acknowledged multiple times: a subjective moral framework has no basis for universally/objectively declaring any one moral framework moral valid than another. The validity is individual: my moral framework will be more valid to me than yours - yours will be more valid to you than mine. Unless I can persuade you to see validity in my argument, your moral framework will not change. Unless you can persuade me to see validity in your moral framework, mine will not change.
But you keep coming back to the absence of a lack of "absolute" validity, as if it's a problem - a shortcoming. It's only a shortcoming to you because you have already decided (without actually showing) that an absolute/universal moral framework is "better." So you keep repeating it, over and over - without ever showing it to be true. This is what I mean when I note you are assessing the subjective moral framework from within the bounds of the objective world - and you are making assertions you have not supported.
They tell us about what is right or wrong for them, not for me and not for you. MY moral framework tells me what is right or wrong for me. To do that, it must be internally consistent. If it is not, it is irrational and, like all other irrational statements, doesn't tell us anything about anything.
I find that a bit circular - or maybe it's a tautology? Sin is "acting immorally," as far as I know. So you are saying, "acting immorally is clouding our moral judgment." That doesn't say a lot to me. It's sort of self evident. If we are acting against our own moral framework, then our moral judgment is either clouded, or we're ignoring it altogether.
The fact is that, if there is a single absolute moral framework, there are apparently a lot of very devout people out there with opposing moral positions. They all think they are aligned on the "absolute." So how am I to determine which of you is aligned to the "right one?" In fact, how are you to determine that? You believe YOU are aligned correctly, probably to the core of your being. But other very devout people are just as convinced as you are that THEY are acting and choosing morally and you have taken a bad turn.
Amazing how, even with a supposed "absolute" to provide guidance, we end up with subjective moral frameworks. Yours is simply your interpretation of the "absolute" you think exists. Mine simply does not have the absolute that requires interpretation.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThey tell us about what is right or wrong for them, not for me and not for you. MY moral framework tells me what is right or wrong for me. To do that, it must be internally consistent. If it is not, it is irrational and, like all other irrational statements, doesn't tell us anything about anything.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostRight but that does mean there are no right answers, just preferences. You prefer lobster, I prefer steak. The Nazis prefer gassing Jewish children, you don't. Ethics are thus reduced to individual or collective preferences. I think most people would intuitively reject that concept.
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm not sure what you mean - where did you demonstrate that ethics are only relative or parochial or non-universal? Carp, you too are making an unprovable claim.
Originally posted by seer View PostRight so gassing Jewish children was right for them. Got it.
Likewise, someone with a declared allegiance to an "absolute moral authority" can believe it is moral to visit the grave site of gay soldiers screaming "god hates fags" or to torture people to "save their souls" or to blow themselves up in a crowded market to "destroy the infidels."
I do not see a lot of difference, Seer.
Originally posted by seer View PostI don't see how that is circular. There is something in man, selfishness, pride, fear (in short sin) that cause us to ignore or minimize the good moral ideals we instinctively know.
Originally posted by seer View PostAgain, the fact that we can get some things, or many things, wrong does not bear on the fact of whether such universal truths exist or not
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd we end up with the Nazis being right in gassing Jewish children according to their worldview. Nice that...
And note, Seer - within your absolute framework, we still had people torturing apostates to "save their soul" and believing it is "right." We have all of the attrocities religions have ever committed in the name of their god and their moral absolute. The Mayans. The Incans. Today the treatment of people who are gay, or transgender. Slavery has been defended in the name of god. Mixed race marriages prohibited in the name of god. Many of these things are no longer true - so apparently the moral "absolute" is not as "absolute" as you think. You point to some absolute moral framework - the interpretation of which keeps changing. I point to individual moral norms aggregating to social moral norms, which keep changing.
The end result is essentially the same. I just don't claim an "absolute" I cannot show or demonstrate to exist.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostLet me ask you a personal question Carp, have you ever done something that violated your own moral code? Or is your code so malleable that you could include any behavior?
But, as with all people, I do not consistently follow my own moral code.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 PostI have absolutely violated my own moral code. Moral codes are not "malleable," much as universalists like to portray them as such. It takes a significant paradigm shift to change a personal moral code. It takes an "awakening" of sorts - a "conversion" of sorts. Until those moments happen - the moral code stays fairly static through life.
But, as with all people, I do not consistently follow my own moral code.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo in essence you "sin" against your own code.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut why the disconnect? Where do these ideals, that you at times fail to live up to, come from?
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat prevents you from living up to your own standard?
That steely glare is enough to get any man to compromise his moral code...The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
597 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment