To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[carpedm9587]

Then in reincarnation how do you move from morally bad to morally good - if there is no moral code that is not subjectively decided by the culture, and relative - there could never be a real, non-subjective, goal to attain.

The "reincarnation" is a tangent, Seer. I'm not arguing for reincarnation. I'm merely point out Kant's logical flaw. For the rest, are you seeing a pattern here? You keep trying to measure against a universal, which I repeat, is not possible in a subjective system where there IS no universal. So...

...a person can move from being "morally bad" to "morally good" in their own moral framework by moving from not following their own moral code to following their own moral code.

...a person can move from being morally bad to morally good in the communal moral framework by acting in accordance with the communal moral framework instead of against it.

...a person can move from being morally bad to morally good in the religious moral framework by acting in accordance with the religious moral framework instead of against it.

etc., etc.

So today, the social moral framework around homosexuality is shifting. The religious moral framework is shifting in some religions, and not in others. So you have the tension that people and communities whose moral framework has shifted are assessing "anti-gay" statements and actions (e.g., prohibitions against gay marriage) as "morally wrong," but for the religions that have NOT (yet?) shifted, they are assessing the institution of gay marriage as a moral evil. This is because each side is assessing it from the context of their subjective moral framework. Within those frameworks, both are "correct" even though they have opposing views on morality, so each decries the other side.

And BTW - I agree that God's law is subjective to Him, but that it is universal, certain, objective to humankind and has absolute authority.

So we agree that it is subjective. In an odd way, we can also possibly agree that it is universal/objective - but in much the same way my moral code is objective/universal to everyone else. That is, I exist and my moral code exists - so it has an objective reality to it. It will cease to exist when I cease to exist, but the fact that I had it and what it was will always "be" in much the same way that the specific food you ate this morning will always "be" a historical, objective truth. Absolute authority? There I suspect we part ways, even if that god exists. The only way in which we can use "authority" in that sentence is to note that, as an all-knowing being with perfect reasoning, god would be a "moral expert," perhaps THE moral expert of the universe, so it might be folly to ignore the moral code that being has derived, just as it might be folly to ignore the physicist warning of an impending collision with a large asteroid. For other senses of the word "authority," those are granted, and I do not think I would ever hand over "authority" over my moral code to another being, god or otherwise. But the point is moot, for me, because I do not believe there is such a being.

BTW - I was editing my original post when you responded. Sorry for the confusion.

[carpedm9587]

Carpedm, would you accept the a priori truth that God exists?

No. I would not consider that an a priori truth.

You know there is a whole, well thought out presuppositional apologetic based on that claim.

This strikes me as an oxymoron. Something that is a priori true cannot be proven, so how does one build an apologetic for it? It would be fascinating to read. Do you have a source?

But that is not the problem. "Existence is a good" is a meaningless claim until you have content and application.

I'm assuming you mean "context" and I provided one - which aligns with Aquinas' - the thing in question is the context. For the rock, it is a good to exist. For a tree, it is a good to exist. For Michel (me) it is a good to exist. For Seer, it is a good to exist. Take a moment and contemplate your own existence, Seer, and then contemplate not existing at all. I don't mean dying - I mean never being. And tell me that you don't intrinsically experience your existence as a good. Not a "feel good" (which is what I think Demi might have been trying to say), but a good. If you cannot, then you are saying your existence is irrelevant, which is an odd position to take.

How does that apply to the cow you want to eat?

Unless the cow is sentient, it doesn't. A non-sentient being cannot have a moral framework. Eating a cow falls outside my moral framework. My framework doesn't say it is moral or immoral to eat a cow.

What difference does that a priori truth make?

I've responded to this multiple times. You asked how a non-religious or atheistic person reasons morally. I gave it to you, right down to a syllogism. You cannot claim the syllogism is invalid, so you have to show a premise is false. You chose to reject Premise #1 - the a priori statement that "to exist is good." I cannot respond to that objection, for what should be obvious reasons.

Or when the Aliens want to have you for supper?

If the aliens are sentient, and their moral code sees me as I see the cow, they will eat me without thought, believing they are neither acting morally or immorally - the act has no moral content. Since my moral code is based on sentience (because a being without it cannot reason so cannot have a moral code), I would evaluate their action as immoral - at least until they get to my brain..

So now you need to apply that truth to your existence, and that is where the trouble comes in - where the circularity comes in. Do you see what I am getting at?

No, Seer, I'm not seeing circularity in the least. That existence is a good is not a moral statement. A moral statement is about acting. Existing is not acting. What seems circular to you is because "good" is being used in two places, but in two different senses of the word, one about existence - and one about action in light of that existence.

[seer]

Are you seeing a pattern here? You keep trying to measure against a universal, which I repeat, is not possible in a subjective system where there IS no universal.

So, a person can move from being "morally bad" to "morally good" in their own moral framework by moving from not following their own moral code to following their own moral code.
A person can move from being morally bad to morally good in the communal moral framework by acting in accordance with the communal moral framework instead of against it.
A person can move from being morally bad to morally good in the religious moral framework by acting in accordance with the religious moral framework instead of against it.

Right, and if there is no universal moral goal then how does reincarnation ever reach an end? What is the end?

Absolute authority? There I suspect we part ways, even if that god exists. The only way in which we can use "authority" in that sentence is to note that, as an all-knowing being with perfect reasoning, god would be a "moral expert," perhaps THE moral expert of the universe, so it might be folly to ignore the moral code that being has derived, just as it might be folly to ignore the physicist warning of an impending collision with a large asteroid. For other senses of the word "authority," those are granted, and I do not think I would ever hand over "authority" over my moral code to another being, god or otherwise. But the point is moot, for me, because I do not believe there is such a being.

Well I would add that God's knowledge is also informed by His immutable moral character. And I'm not sure why you wouldn't hand over your moral authority to such an all knowing Being.

[carpedm9587]

Right, and if there is no universal moral goal then how does reincarnation ever reach an end? What is the end?

I really don't want to get lost in defense of a mechanism I do not believe exists. Kant's argument fails even before you get to justice because the second premise fails, and because he erroneously links justice (an outcome) to moral reasoning (a rational process). In our hypothetical reincarnation thought experiment, we could postulate that reincarnation only ends when the persons actions are 100% in alignment with their own moral code. That does not require any previous action to be passed into another life; it doesn't even require the moral code in the new life to be the same as the moral code in the old life. If I die "out of alignment" with my own, current, moral code, my "living energy" recycles until the lifetime when I am in perfect alignment with my own moral framework - at which point my living energy dissipates. We can call this "enlightenment!"

Again, this is a mental exercise. I do not believe in such a process, but it underscores that Kant made assumptions in his proof that destroy the proof if you do not make the same assumptions.

Well I would add that God's knowledge is also informed by His immutable moral character. And I'm not sure why you wouldn't hand over your moral authority to such an all knowing Being.

First of all - I DO not because I believe no such being exists. It is hard to say what I would do if such a being DID exist. At one time, I DID believe in such a being, and I DID "hand over" my moral reasoning for a period. Would I do it again if my beliefs reverted? I don't know. Sitting here, now, I think not. But who knows?

[seer]

In our hypothetical reincarnation thought experiment, we could postulate that reincarnation only ends when the persons actions are 100% in alignment with their own moral code. That does not require any previous action to be passed into another life. If I die "out of alignment" with my own moral code, my "living energy" recycles until the lifetime when I am in perfect alignment with my own moral framework - at which point my living energy dissipates. We can call this "enlightenment!"

100% with my own moral code? Really I don't think that is at all what reincarnation actually teaches.

First of all - I DO not because I believe no such being exists. It is hard to say what I would do if such a being DID exist. At one time, I DID believe in such a being, and I DID "hand over" my moral reasoning for a period. Would I do it again if my beliefs reverted? I don't know. Sitting here, now, I think not. But who knows?

OK, fair enough...

[seer]

No. I would not consider that an a priori truth.

Interesting, then who gets to decide what an a priori truth is?

This strikes me as an oxymoron. Something that is a priori true cannot be proven, so how does one build an apologetic for it? It would be fascinating to read. Do you have a source?

No it is not an oxymoron, it just starts with the assumption of God's existence, here is a short primer: https://carm.org/presuppositional-apologetics

I'm assuming you mean "context" and I provided one - which aligns with Aquinas' - the thing in question is the context. For the rock, it is a good to exist. For a tree, it is a good to exist. For Michel (me) it is a good to exist. For Seer, it is a good to exist. Take a moment and contemplate your own existence, Seer, and then contemplate not existing at all. I don't mean dying - I mean never being. And tell me that you don't intrinsically experience your existence as a good. Not a "feel good" (which is what I think Demi might have been trying to say), but a good. If you cannot, then you are saying your existence is irrelevant, which is an odd position to take.

Unless the cow is sentient, it doesn't. A non-sentient being cannot have a moral framework. Eating a cow falls outside my moral framework. My framework doesn't say it is moral or immoral to eat a cow.

No carpedm, if "existence is a good" is an a priori truth then sentience or lack of makes no difference, your "truth" makes no distinction in this area. So how does "existence is a good" apply to the cow or to you when the Alien wants to cook you?

I've responded to this multiple times. You asked how a non-religious or atheistic person reasons morally. I gave it to you, right down to a syllogism. You cannot claim the syllogism is invalid, so you have to show a premise is false. You chose to reject Premise #1 - the a priori statement that "to exist is good." I cannot respond to that objection, for what should be obvious reasons.

No, I'm asking how is your a priori truth meaningful, how does it apply without circularity? How does it lead to deductive reasoning for your survival in the case of the Alien seeing you as food or us seeing the cow as food

No, Seer, I'm not seeing circularity in the least. That existence is a good is not a moral statement. A moral statement is about acting. Existing is not acting. What seems circular to you is because "good" is being used in two places, but in two different senses of the word, one about existence - and one about action in light of that existence.

But that is not what I'm asking - why is YOUR existence a good? Not because of the a priori truth that existence is a good, that does not even apply any more than it applies to the cow you want to eat.

[carpedm9587]

Interesting, then who gets to decide what an a priori truth is?

An a priori truth is self-evident. 12 = 12 is self evident. We don't need to "decide." If two people disagree on a particular a priori truth, then one person is saying, "that is not self evident." If someone rejects an a priori truth, than there is simply no mechanism for proceeding further. If I am discussing mathematics with someone, and they say, "I do not accept 12 = 12, we're done. I have no way to help them, because they are denying the fundamental mathematical "law of identity." Likewise, if you deny that it is "a good" to exist, I have no way to proceed. You are examining your own existence and seeing no "good" to it. And again - not a moral good - good in the sense of "desirable state" as opposed to "undesirable state." That is how Aquinas used the term.

No it is not an oxymoron, it just starts with the assumption of God's existence, here is a short primer: https://carm.org/presuppositional-apologetics

If you start with the assumption "god exists," I can easily see how you would end up with the conclusion, "god exists." That being said, I will review the article linked.

No carpedm, if "existence is a good" is an a priori truth then sentience or lack of makes no difference, your "truth" makes no distinction in this area. So how does "existence is a good" apply to the cow or to you when the Alien wants to cook you?

My moral code is about MY moral action, Seer. I can assess the actions of another against my moral code, but that will only tell me how I view their actions, not how THEY view their actions. The cow cannot because the cow is not sentient - it cannot make moral choices (as far as I know). And you keep taking "existence is good" out of the context and try to apply it universally. My existence is a good to me. The cow's existence is a good to it. The alien's existence is a good to it. It does not necessarily follow that the alien's existence is a good to me, or that the cow's existence is a good to me. For each thing, it's own existence is a good. If a rock could think, it would see its own existence as a "desirable state" - a good.

No, I'm asking how is your a priori truth meaningful, how does it apply without circularity? How does it lead to deductive reasoning for your survival in the case of the Alien seeing you as food or us seeing the cow as food

I have to assume that something about how I am expressing myself is simply at odds with how you are receiving it. As a teacher by profession, that is always a disturbing experience, and suggests I still have not found the right combination of words to successfully convey the message. I have to admit I am at a point where I cannot think of another way to convey the message. I have tried formal logic, analogy, prose explanation, and we keep encountering the wall of your attempt to assess the framework from your objective/universal/absolute moral framework. I can assure you, it will always look "unreasonable" to you from that perspective - because it is not objective/universal/absolute.

Perhaps the question you could ask that would break this impediment is: "is the argument internally consistent?"

But that is not what I'm asking - why is YOUR existence a good? Not because of the a priori truth that existence is a good, that does not even apply any more than it applies to the cow you want to eat.

Again, MY existence is a good to ME - so it serves as the basis for MY moral framework. YOUR existence is a good to YOU, so it serves as the basis for YOUR moral framework, unless you subjugate your moral authority to someone or something else. If you persist in taking my statements out of the context in which are made, then there is truly no way I can convey anything here - because you will continually misunderstand. From my side, the argument continually sounds like this:

Fred: I like bananas
John: So what does your like of bananas have to do with me?
Fred: It doesn't - it has to do with me. I like bananas.
John: So why should I like bananas?
Fred: You shouldn't, unless you do. I was talking about me.
John: What about the cow - or the alien - how does your liking bananas translate to them?
Fred: It doesn't. I was talking about MY preferences. I like bananas.
John: You're making a circular argument...

And so forth. I would put the "head pounding in frustration" emoji here - but I have come to view those things, unless truly used humorously, as somewhat rude. But the discussion IS a bit frustration - I must admit.

Don't get me wrong - I truly do not think you are doing it on purpose. I think all of this flies in the face of your worldview, so your mind resists it. While it is possible the reverse is true, from my perspective, my moral reasoning framework "works" with or without the existence of a god. But if your moral framework is absolute/universal/objective, a subjective moral framework is nonsensical. Ironically, what you are doing is consistent with your line of argument - you continue to assess my moral framework from the perspective of your own - which is pretty much in line with a subjective framework.

[carpedm9587]

https://carm.org/presuppositional-apologetics

I totally misunderstood your posts with respect to this. The apologetic is not suggesting one accept god a priori, but rather is seeking to expose the presuppositions that go into one's beliefs with respect to god. It is a perfectly valid strategy for approaching anyone on any topic. If someone believes trickle down (supply-side) economics are bad, getting to the presuppositions that underlay that belief is a first step to convincing.

I'm not sure how this relates to our discussion about "the good to me of my existence" (I'm being careful, now, to always include the context with the proposition, to avoid confusion) being an a priori truth.

By the way - THIS atheist does not ask anyone to "prove to me there is a god." Nor do I have any intention of trying to prove to someone else there is not one. If someone asks me to outline the basis for my beliefs, I am happy to do so. If someone wants to outline the basis for their beliefs, I am happy to listen. I may respond with which elements are a disconnect for me, but I have no need for you to "adopt atheism." I'd be happy to engage in a spirited debate about one point or another. But I have no need for you to "convert" or to "acknowledge the rightness of my beliefs."

What is frustrating in our discussion about moral frameworks is that I cannot seem to successfully convey the nature of that framework to you - whether or not you agree with it. What you reflect back to me in your posts does not accurately reflect the position I espoused in the previous post. So somehow, somewhere, the communication is broken. I'll keep noodling on it and see if I can come up with another way.

[carpedm9587]

100% with my own moral code? Really I don't think that is at all what reincarnation actually teaches.

I was not trying to espouse an existing philosophy or theology of reincarnation - just using the idea of "recycling back to another life" as a hypothetical model that defies Kant's assumptions. There is nothing logically inconsistent about what I proposed, and it would meet all of the accepted definitions of justice I know about. However, even if the whole thing fell apart somehow, Kant still fails at Premise #2, so the failure of Premise #3 is just icing on the cake, from my perspective.

BTW - it is my general position that the existence of god is not something that will ever be provable or disprovable in any formal, logical sense. Every proof FOR or AGAINST the existence of a go d that I have encountered fails at one point or another. Ultimately, one's belief in or about a god is a matter of faith. Though it often ticks off my atheist counterparts, I see atheism as just another article of faith. It lacks a formal religious structure, mind you, but it is as much a position of faith as belief in a god is. At some point, you look at the body of evidence for and against, and you make a "leap" to the acceptance of one reality or the other. I could no more prove to you that god does not exist than I believe you could prove to me that he/she/it does. The best we could do is outline our reasons for believing as we do.

[Roy]

What is frustrating in our discussion about moral frameworks is that I cannot seem to successfully convey the nature of that framework to you - whether or not you agree with it. What you reflect back to me in your posts does not accurately reflect the position I espoused in the previous post. So somehow, somewhere, the communication is broken.

Don't neglect the possibility that your correspondent is deliberately avoiding your argument because he cannot counter it. I've given up trying to discuss anything with seer mainly because he is a serial misrepresenter.

[Adrift]

Don't neglect the possibility that your correspondent is deliberately avoiding your argument because he cannot counter it. I've given up trying to discuss anything with seer mainly because he is a serial misrepresenter.

Eh, I think seer does a pretty decent job engaging with his opponent's arguments actually. I think he frustrates people because his arguments are relatively simple and effective, and he won't bend to his debatees way of thinking. Also, unlike other Christian posters, he's tenacious like a cockroach. That's a feature you usually only see on this forum with skeptics.

[Roy]

Eh, I think seer does a pretty decent job engaging with his opponent's arguments actually. I think he frustrates people because his arguments are relatively simple and effective, and he won't bend to his debatees way of thinking. Also, unlike other Christian posters, he's tenacious like a cockroach. That's a feature you usually only see on this forum with skeptics.

[seer mode]
So you agree that seer's arguments are frustratingly misrepresentative, like a cockroach that scuttles away from the light?
[/seer mode]

[carpedm9587]

Don't neglect the possibility that your correspondent is deliberately avoiding your argument because he cannot counter it. I've given up trying to discuss anything with seer mainly because he is a serial misrepresenter.

I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. Professional habit. As a teacher, I just cannot bring myself to believe that the person I am talking with would intentionally work to not understand.

[seer]

An a priori truth is self-evident. 12 = 12 is self evident. We don't need to "decide." If two people disagree on a particular a priori truth, then one person is saying, "that is not self evident." If someone rejects an a priori truth, than there is simply no mechanism for proceeding further. If I am discussing mathematics with someone, and they say, "I do not accept 12 = 12, we're done. I have no way to help them, because they are denying the fundamental mathematical "law of identity." Likewise, if you deny that it is "a good" to exist, I have no way to proceed. You are examining your own existence and seeing no "good" to it. And again - not a moral good - good in the sense of "desirable state" as opposed to "undesirable state." That is how Aquinas used the term.

Except in math, like 12=12 it can not be any other way. Some one who commits suicide has decided that existence is not a desirable state (which was the case with a good friend of mine recently). So unlike the rules of logic for instance where there can't be an actual contrary position there can be with the question of existence. Whether you find your existence desirable or not is subjective. Agreed?

My moral code is about MY moral action, Seer. I can assess the actions of another against my moral code, but that will only tell me how I view their actions, not how THEY view their actions. The cow cannot because the cow is not sentient - it cannot make moral choices (as far as I know). And you keep taking "existence is good" out of the context and try to apply it universally. My existence is a good to me. The cow's existence is a good to it. The alien's existence is a good to it. It does not necessarily follow that the alien's existence is a good to me, or that the cow's existence is a good to me. For each thing, it's own existence is a good. If a rock could think, it would see its own existence as a "desirable state" - a good.

Right and that is my point - your existence is a good to you. You decide your existence is a good, because you decide. But why is it good to you? Any argument you use will beg the question. Your a priori truth does nothing to inform this question. You would come to the same conclusion whether you held to this a priori truth or not. Like I said, it has no real currency in the discussion.


Let's focus on these two questions for now...

[carpedm9587]

Eh, I think seer does a pretty decent job engaging with his opponent's arguments actually. I think he frustrates people because his arguments are relatively simple and effective, and he won't bend to his debatees way of thinking. Also, unlike other Christian posters, he's tenacious like a cockroach. That's a feature you usually only see on this forum with skeptics.

I have long found the term "skeptics" an interesting one. I actually don't see myself as "skeptical." I have a set of beliefs that includes some elements and excludes others, as with any human being. Ultimately, we are all skeptical of the things that are not in our belief system, so we can all be described as "skeptics."

But I agree that Seer is tenacious, and generally engages respectfully in the exchange - staying on the argument at hand instead of taking swipes at the person making them.