To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[carpedm9587]

I did, concerning you ethical beliefs. It is all subjective and relative - and nothing else.

I had to think about this for a bit. At first, I was going to say, "I'm not sure how one can see a continuum between 'subjective' and 'objective.' " But as a thought about it, I realized that I have outlined such a continuum repeatedly. My beliefs are indeed subjective - but they are rooted in objectively true realities (e.g., the a priori goodness of existence, the causal nature of the universe). I have pointed to our common universe (an objective reality) and our common humanity (an objective reality) and our common rooting in the rules of logic and reasoning (an objective reality) multiple times.

The moral code itself cannot be described as anything but subjective because (as we both have agreed) it is a function of mind. It is an evaluation of actions as good or not good, which is a value judgment - and value is subjective. I have noted (and you agreed) that even god's moral code would be subjective to god. Indeed, you have said repeatedly that you do not use the term "objective" in relation to morality, for that very reason.

There is another way "objective" applies. Your moral code is "objective" to me. Your moral code is unrelated to my thought process - and independent of my choices. If there were a god, that god's code would be "objective" to me. The only moral code that is subject is my own - and yours is to you - and god's is to god.

Now - if the argument is that my position is binary because I am arguing that MY moral code is purely "subjective" and I do not permit "objective" to be part of that process, then (other than what I outlined above), I guess I have to plead guilty. It is not clear to me how something can be simultaneously subjective and objective in the same place at the same time in the same way. The very terms (and the law of noncontradiction) would seem to preclude it.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not sure why you would disagree with this either. If life has no intrinsic meaning or value how would the human species be significant? In what way would anything we do effect the totality of existence? If humanity was wiped out tomorrow what would it matter?

Again, you left out some words in your sentence. Permit me to insert the invisible words (italicized):

If life has no intrinsic meaning or value how would the human species be absolutely significant? In what way would anything we do effect the totality of existence? If humanity was wiped out tomorrow what would it matter universally?

The answer, of course, is "it wouldn't." Nothing we do has universal, or absolute, or "total" (you DID include that one...) significance. It has finite, limited, temporal, significance. But the universalist/absolutist/totalist will spontaneously reject anything that is not universal/absolute/total as "meaningless."

Yesterday, I repotted a plant. I found pleasure in the action. It beautifies my house. It gave me joy as I walked down the stairs. It has brightened the day of at least two other people (so far). That is meaningful. That is significant. That the plant will not exist in 20 years does not alter the significance and meaning that action had yesterday and today - and will have again tomorrow.

Our neighborhood convenience store was robbed 3 days ago, and the elderly lady that runs it will be out-of-pocket for over $1,000 (the deductible on her insurance). So I organized a fundraiser and in 3 hours we collected the $1,000 for the deductible from the community that is grateful for the generosity this woman has shown over the years. In 20 years so will be dead. In 1,000 years we all all be gone and this town may not even exist. None of that will change the joy she will feel when I give her that check later today, or the satisfaction the community feels at reaching out to her, or the positive force that action created in our community today. Who knows what positive actions will result from that example - and that sense of well being?

The universalist/absolutists/totalist may require things to be universal, absolute, or total for them to see it as "meaningful." It is, again, a function of binary thinking. I have no such limitation. The fact that, several billion years from now, this universe will no longer exist and will be in a state of "heat death" does not alter the significance of what I do today.

[JimL]

Of course it makes sense, from the Christian perspective we are not living as we were created or designed to live. Hence all the troubles we see. But if were not designed for a purpose then the way we act is just the way we act - good, bad or indifferent - just animals doing what animals do. Every man does what is right in his own eyes, moral chaos...

Again thats your opinion seer. The troubles we see are do to ourselves and our actions, yes, but that doesn't necessitate that we were created, it only means that we are not doing that which best serves our interests as human beings.

[Tassman]

Of course it makes sense, from the Christian perspective we are not living as we were created or designed to live. Hence all the troubles we see. But if were not designed for a purpose then the way we act is just the way we act - good, bad or indifferent - just animals doing what animals do. Every man does what is right in his own eyes, moral chaos...

So when, from the Christian perspective, have we lived as “we were created or designed to live”? The history of humankind has been fraught with violence and injustice regardless of the prevailing religion...often with one religion pitted against another. Look around.

One could better argue that we are living as we have evolved to live, namely in community with changing community values according to the evolving needs of community survival and prosperity. Surely it’s no accident that the more secular countries tend to be the most equitable and least prone to violence.

[shunyadragon]

Carpedm why on earth would you think me angry? You should see me debating Shuny - that is angry...

. . . because you are unnecessarily aggressive and combative, accusing me lying when we disagree. and kicking me out of a thread with emotional outrage. Your illogical irrational thinking for those who believe differently is over the top big time.

I will debate anyone anytime, but apparently you are an easier target, and more entertaining.

Back to the original topic of the thread I never seen an atheist/agnostics propose that our morals and ethics are grounded in reason. There choice of belief may have a very strong motivation in reason, logic and science.

[seer]

Again, you left out some words in your sentence. Permit me to insert the invisible words (italicized):

If life has no intrinsic meaning or value how would the human species be absolutely significant? In what way would anything we do effect the totality of existence? If humanity was wiped out tomorrow what would it matter universally?

The answer, of course, is "it wouldn't." Nothing we do has universal, or absolute, or "total" (you DID include that one...) significance. It has finite, limited, temporal, significance. But the universalist/absolutist/totalist will spontaneously reject anything that is not universal/absolute/total as "meaningless."

Then you would be an existential nihilist by definition...

[seer]

. . . because you are unnecessarily aggressive and combative, accusing me lying when we disagree. and kicking me out of a thread with emotional outrage. Your illogical irrational thinking for those who believe differently is over the top big time.

I will debate anyone anytime, but apparently you are an easier target, and more entertaining.

Back to the original topic of the thread I never seen an atheist/agnostics propose that our morals and ethics are grounded in reason. There choice of belief may have a very strong motivation in reason, logic and science.

Shuny, you lie about me all the time.

[seer]

Again thats your opinion seer. The troubles we see are do to ourselves and our actions, yes, but that doesn't necessitate that we were created, it only means that we are not doing that which best serves our interests as human beings.

Again Jim, if we weren't designed to live in a particular way then it is all a crap shoot. There really is no correct way to live, there is no reason to assume that we should live for your greater good especially if it costs us to do so.

[seer]

I had to think about this for a bit. At first, I was going to say, "I'm not sure how one can see a continuum between 'subjective' and 'objective.' " But as a thought about it, I realized that I have outlined such a continuum repeatedly. My beliefs are indeed subjective - but they are rooted in objectively true realities (e.g., the a priori goodness of existence, the causal nature of the universe). I have pointed to our common universe (an objective reality) and our common humanity (an objective reality) and our common rooting in the rules of logic and reasoning (an objective reality) multiple times.

The moral code itself cannot be described as anything but subjective because (as we both have agreed) it is a function of mind. It is an evaluation of actions as good or not good, which is a value judgment - and value is subjective. I have noted (and you agreed) that even god's moral code would be subjective to god. Indeed, you have said repeatedly that you do not use the term "objective" in relation to morality, for that very reason.

There is another way "objective" applies. Your moral code is "objective" to me. Your moral code is unrelated to my thought process - and independent of my choices. If there were a god, that god's code would be "objective" to me. The only moral code that is subject is my own - and yours is to you - and god's is to god.

Now - if the argument is that my position is binary because I am arguing that MY moral code is purely "subjective" and I do not permit "objective" to be part of that process, then (other than what I outlined above), I guess I have to plead guilty. It is not clear to me how something can be simultaneously subjective and objective in the same place at the same time in the same way. The very terms (and the law of noncontradiction) would seem to preclude it.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Subjective and relative as opposed to universal and eternal moral truths. That we live in an amoral, unjust universe as opposed to a just and moral universe. Your thinking is rather either/or on this subject.

[JimL]

Again Jim, if we weren't designed to live in a particular way then it is all a crap shoot.

Think about that seer. What do you mean by it? Life is all a crap shoot means what to you?

There really is no correct way to live, there is no reason to assume that we should live for your greater good especially if it costs us to do so.

If our moral codes serve our better interests as a human community then it isn't costing us anything, it is benefitting us. I'll assume that "by being designed to live a certain way" what you mean by "that certain way" is a way that serves our best interests as human beings living together in community.

[seer]

Think about that seer. What do you mean by it? Life is all a crap shoot means what to you?

It means without a design or purpose for humanity anything goes morally.

If our moral codes serve our better interests as a human community then it isn't costing us anything, it is benefitting us. I'll assume that "by being designed to live a certain way" what you mean by "that certain way" is a way that serves our best interests as human beings living together in community.

Again you keep saying this. Why does one seek the benefit of the general population rather than the benefit of his group, family or ruling elite friends? Like we often see in history? Why would the Communist Chinese leaders give up power for greater democracy and freedom for the general population?

[JimL]

It means without a design or purpose for humanity anything goes morally.

And being that we have free will, anything goes morally, right? But we don't live that way, and it isn't because we were designed to behave a certain way, it is because it is in our best intersts as a community and as individuals living together in community to live according to shared morals. Its really very simple seer. If we didn't have moral codes come down from heaven, we would, and we do, create them for ourselves.

Again you keep saying this. Why does one seek the benefit of the general population rather than the benefit of his group, family or ruling elite friends? Like we often see in history? Why would the Communist Chinese leaders give up power for greater democracy and freedom for the general population?

Because it doesn't matter how large or how small your group is, in the end all are equally susceptible to the ills of living in a community in which there are no moral codes.

[carpedm9587]

Then you would be an existential nihilist by definition...

Except for that second part of the definition...

[seer]

Its really very simple seer. If we didn't have moral codes come down from heaven, we would, and we do, create them for ourselves.

Right and you have your moral code, the Nazi his and the Communist his, and on and on we go...

Because it doesn't matter how large or how small your group is, in the end all are equally susceptible to the ills of living in a community in which there are no moral codes.

Again, so Why would the Communist Chinese leaders give up power for greater democracy and freedom for the general population?

[carpedm9587]

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Subjective and relative as opposed to universal and eternal moral truths. That we live in an amoral, unjust universe as opposed to a just and moral universe. Your thinking is rather either/or on this subject.

I actually don't think we live in an amoral, unjust universe. YOU think that my worldview leads there, because you are assessing it against your need for moral statements to be absolute/universal. I do not have that need, so the subjective nature of morality doesn't bother me, or lead me to consider the universe injust or immoral.

As for the binary question cited above, if you frame the question as either/or, it's a little hard not to answer you in a binary fashion. That's a function of how you framed the question - not my worldview. So yes, given the binary options of subjective/relative vs. objective/universal - morality appears to be the former, not the latter.