To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[seer]

Again, Seer, you are evaluating my statements from an "absolute" or "universal" point of view. My moral code is exactly that - my moral code. I use it to evaluate my actions, and those of the people around me. But you cannot take a subjective moral code and apply it absolutely. I can evaluate the alien's action as immoral and the alien can evaluate theirs as moral, and we can both be right from the perspective of our individual moral codes.

My existence is "good" to me - the alien's to them - the rock's to them. If you do not see your own existence as a good - then I am not sure how to help. A priori truths are not provable.

First Carpedm I can only touch on a couple of things here right now. You are making my point, your first premise - that your existence is a good begs the question. It is a good, at bottom, because you say it is a good - circular. And that was my point. I do want to get to the rest of your post, perhaps in the morning.

Would that we could have this discussion over a beer and pizza - I suspect it would unfold differently. If you are ever in the vicinity of Burlington, Vermont - the beer and pizza are on me!

I would like that but you are pretty far north of me. I live in northwestern Connecticut, at 65 I don't tend to drive far anymore...

[carpedm9587]

First Carpedm I can only touch on a couple of things here right now. You are making my point, your first premise - that your existence is a good begs the question. It is a good, at bottom, because you say it is a good - circular. And that was my point. I do want to get to the rest of your post, perhaps in the morning.

On this we are not going to agree. Even Aquinas acknowledged the goodness of "being," which was the basis for much of his philosophy. If you are taking the position that "existence" is not a good - then you are denying (IMO) an a priori truth and you are forced to acknowledge that your own existence is not "a good." You are essentially taking the position, "to be is not better than to not be." I would consider that irrational - much as I would consider someone saying "a thing can be true and false at the same time, in the same, place, and under the same circumstances."

As I have said before, if you reject an a priori truth - I cannot answer you. By definition, and a priori truth cannot be proven.

I would like that but you are pretty far north of me. I live in northwestern Connecticut, at 65 I don't tend to drive far anymore...

I travel south regularly. Should I head in that direction, I'll drop you a note. Perhaps I can make good on that offer in your neck of the woods!

[seer]

On this we are not going to agree. Even Aquinas acknowledged the goodness of "being," which was the basis for much of his philosophy. If you are taking the position that "existence" is not a good - then you are denying (IMO) an a priori truth and you are forced to acknowledge that your own existence is not "a good." You are essentially taking the position, "to be is not better than to not be." I would consider that irrational - much as I would consider someone saying "a thing can be true and false at the same time, in the same, place, and under the same circumstances."

But it is both true and false in your relative world. Remember we are speaking of your existence. You believe it is a good, the Aliens believe that you being their supper is a good. You already agreed that cooking you for supper is not unethical for the Alien, though you would consider your demise unethical. So it is good or not good depending on the situation.

I travel south regularly. Should I head in that direction, I'll drop you a note. Perhaps I can make good on that offer in your neck of the woods!

I would be more than happy to meet you!

[carpedm9587]

But it is both true and false in your relative world. Remember we are speaking of your existence. You believe it is a good, the Aliens believe that you being their supper is a good. You already agreed that cooking you for supper is not unethical for the Alien, though you would consider your demise unethical. So it is good or not good depending on the situation.

Umm...no. Again, you keep shifting perspectives, without acknowledging you do so (I have seen others call this "shifting the goal posts," but I am not sure if it applies here). I see my existence as a good. Aliens see THEIR existence as a good. For any given thing, it is a good "for themselves to exist." When you ask if it is a good to the ALIENS for ME to exist, you are shifting the context without acknowledging that you are doing so.

I would be more than happy to meet you!

Likewise. Much as a disagree with your reasoning - you are articulate and you keep it about the argument - not the person. Well... mostly

[seer]

Umm...no. Again, you keep shifting perspectives, without acknowledging you do so (I have seen others call this "shifting the goal posts," but I am not sure if it applies here). I see my existence as a good. Aliens see THEIR existence as a good. For any given thing, it is a good "for themselves to exist." When you ask if it is a good to the ALIENS for ME to exist, you are shifting the context without acknowledging that you are doing so.

Carpedm the assumption that existence is good is an empty proposition until it has content, application. That is why I brought up the Aliens and the cow that I had for supper. Yes all creatures have the instinct to survive but once you bring a moral judgement and apply it to a specific instance 'your existence is a good' you have trouble. And these assumptions only have legs in a real world application. So your life is a good to you, and your demise is a good for the Alien. Both positions are circular and subjective. And no way to objectively judge between the two.

Likewise. Much as a disagree with your reasoning - you are articulate and you keep it about the argument - not the person. Well... mostly

...and you smell bad too!

[carpedm9587]

Carpedm the assumption that existence is good is an empty proposition until it has content, application. That is why I brought up the Aliens and the cow that I had for supper. Yes all creatures have the instinct to survive but once you bring a moral judgement and apply it to a specific instance 'your existence is a good' you have trouble. And these assumptions only have legs in a real world application. So your life is a good to you, and your demise is a good for the Alien. Both position are circular and subjective. And no way to objectively judge between the two.

Therein lies our disagreement. Both positions are subjective, but that does not make the argument circular. And there is indeed no way to objectively judge between the two. That what I have been saying... you are trying to make an objective assessment on a subjective reality. You might as well complain that someone’s preference for sushi is unreal because there is no subjective reference point for accepting love of sushi. You keep trying to assess a subjective reality by objective criteria, but you have not shown there IS an objective criteria to be used, except to assert it has to be so, because subjective criteria fails because it has no objective criteria. The whole assertion is circular.

...and you smell bad too!

Yeah... well.... so!

[Tassman]

But it is both true and false in your relative world. Remember we are speaking of your existence. You believe it is a good, the Aliens believe that you being their supper is a good. You already agreed that cooking you for supper is not unethical for the Alien, though you would consider your demise unethical. So it is good or not good depending on the situation.

One would consider one’s own ”demise” unwanted, not unethical. Aliens and humans both seek to survive, just as all living creatures endeavour to survive. This is not "unethical" it's instinctive. .

[seer]

Therein lies our disagreement. Both positions are subjective, but that does not make the argument circular. And there is indeed no way to objectively judge between the two. That what I have been saying... you are trying to make an objective assessment on a subjective reality. You might as well complain that someone’s preference for sushi is unreal because there is no subjective reference point for accepting love of sushi. You keep trying to assess a subjective reality by objective criteria, but you have not shown there IS an objective criteria to be used, except to assert it has to be so, because subjective criteria fails because it has no objective criteria. The whole assertion is circular.

Well no carpedm, it is circular. It is you who subjectively believes your existence is a good - why is your existence a good - basically because you say so. That is begging the question, and a position the Alien would not agree with. And my argument is not so much about the subjectivity, but the circular reasoning. The subjectivity only highlights why the argument begs the question.

[seer]

Seer, you're picking nits, and I strongly suspect you know it. Who cares how the "past wrongs" are recorded? They could be imprinted on the conscience of the person in question, they could be encoded in a subconscious collective memory, they could be written on the surface of the moon with a magic marker. They could be imprinted on their karma - emblazoned on their forehead. The point is, there are a multitude of ways that "justice" could be done without recourse to a god and without obviating the need for a mind. Kant's argument simply dismisses any and all alternatives and assumes its conclusion. It is circular.

Again we disagree, a MIND is still required. Who wrote it on the moon? What created that moral karma system? Rocks, gas, gravity? What directs this collective memory? How does a collective memory work? How exactly do you know what evil that baby did in a prior life so you can punish it in this life? Sorry Bro, it doesn't make sense apart from a moral mind creating, directing the process. A mind that has some overriding sense of justice that is not limited to relative cultural norms. So no, there are not a lot of alternatives.

They might find them laudable - ending the cycle. If the definition of what is moral changes, then "justice" will with it. That has happened throughout the ages, even within Christian circles. Slavery was defined as moral by many Christians - now it is not. Torture was defined as moral by many Christians - now it is not (mostly). Homosexuality was prohibited by most Christians - now THAT is in the process of changing. "Interest on a loan" used to be considered an immoral practice, now it is widely accepted.

That does not make sense Carpedm, if the definition of justice changes then there could never be a universal goal or end. It would always be relative to a particular society. And even if Christians did or do get somethings wrong that is not the point, the question is, is there a universal justice that is not culturally relative that we can move towards, conform to? And questions of justice are mind dependent.

[demi-conservative]

You have not offered an alternate definition from an alternate "authoritative" source that conflicts with the ones I've offered, so I do not have much to respond to except to point back to the definitions I have offered and ask, "where exactly have I redefined anything?"

A layman dictionary? A technical discussion? Demi, the discussion is about the meaning of English words in a debate being executed in the English language. Just what dictionary do you think I should be using? Merriam Webster is a recognized authority on the English language. I use other dictionary's as well (American College, Oxford, Collins, etc.), but I see no purpose in quoting each of them if they essentially align with one another. And 59 meanings of "authoritative" and "authority?" I posted 10, but I would be interested in knowing what the other 40+ are.

You really too short for ride, if you think everyday dictionary for technical philosophy debate is okay.

[carpedm9587]

Well no carpedm, it is circular. It is you who subjectively believes your existence is a good - why is your existence a good - basically because you say so. That is begging the question, and a position the Alien would not agree with. And my argument is not so much about the subjectivity, but the circular reasoning. The subjectivity only highlights why the argument begs the question.

As you wish, Seer. As I've said multiple times, an a priori truth cannot be proven, so you have me unable to defend my position. However, it's somewhat like saying, to the student who completed this mathematical proof:

Prove that X+10 = 12 is true for X=2

X+10 = 12 (given)
2+10 = 12 (substitution)
12=12 (addition)
QED

"I'm sorry junior, but you have not proven that 12=12, so I'm giving you an F."

Junior is indeed left without a response, because the teacher is rejecting an a priori truth.

[carpedm9587]

Again we disagree, a MIND is still required. Who wrote it on the moon? What created that moral karma system? Rocks, gas, gravity? What directs this collective memory? How does a collective memory work? How exactly do you know what evil that baby did in a prior life so you can punish it in this life? Sorry Bro, it doesn't make sense apart from a moral mind creating, directing the process. A mind that has some overriding sense of justice that is not limited to relative cultural norms. So no, there are not a lot of alternatives.

As I said, Seer, a mind is always required for moral judgments. No one has denied that. You're looking for a means by which a record can pass from one life to another, and I (humorously?) gave you several. That a mind has to be behind it is not in question. That the mind HAS to be a god is. Kant has not made that case - he has merely assumed it. For all we know, the mechanism could be the mind itself. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, merely transformed. So the "record" could simply by part of the living energy transformed from one body to another. A "soul" or "karma," if you wish.

I don't believe any of these things exist, mind you. I am merely saying Kant has made a lot of assumptions in his proof, which cause the proof to fail if you do not make the same assumptions.

That does not make sense Carpedm, if the definition of justice changes then there could never be a universal goal or end. It would always be relative to a particular society. And even if Christians did or do get somethings wrong that is not the point, the question is, is there a universal justice that is not culturally relative that we can move towards, conform to? And questions of justice are mind dependent.

Again, Seer, you are measuring it against "universal." Of COURSE there cannot be a universal goal for a subjective system. Of COURSE that makes no sense in the context of a universal morality. But you are attempting to judge a subjective process - and your complaint boils down to the same one I hear over and over again: "you can't have a subjective moral framework, because then it isn't objective/universal/absolute!" To which I can only respond... of COURSE it's not - it's subjective.

And my answer to your question about a universal justice that is not culturally relative? No - there is not one. There cannot be one, even if there is a god. If a god does exist, and is an independent mind, then that mind will form its own subjective moral code. God may be the biggest and most powerful and most awesome, but god cannot override my moral code unless I am deprived of will in some form. So long as my mind is independent and free to reason - it will form its own moral code. God's is just another moral code in a sea of them, one for each sentient being in existence.

What I experience Christians (and other religions) doing is to point to the communal moral code derived by their religion, attribute it to their god, and claim that this gives it authority over any other moral code. It is the "objective absolute" to which all must bend. First, as an atheist, I believe no such god exists, which makes that claim a little dubious. Second, even if that god exists, how does that make this god's moral code objective or universal? It is simply subjective to another sentient mind: god's. You can claim that the moral code is "perfect" because god knows all and reasons with perfection, so there is no way my limited reasoning could derive a "better" moral code, but that doesn't change the fact that a moral code is an internal construct. So just as I can listen to you explain your moral code, find things in it I had not considered in it, and adopt those things into my own moral code, so too could I listen to this hypothetical god's moral code, and adopt any and all elements into my own moral code. The result is still my moral code.

Consider the following thought experiment. I publish my complete moral code as an OpEd piece in the NYT, which is picked up by every paper on the planet and every sentient mind in existence reads it and adopts my moral code in its entirety. Does that make my moral code "objectively true" or "universal?" I would argue that it does not. It is still my moral code, which every other sentient being has decided to adopt and make it their moral code. You now have billions of subjective moral codes that happen to align, because each person independently elected to adopt the same code.

[carpedm9587]

You really too short for ride, if you think everyday dictionary for technical philosophy debate is okay.

As you wish, Demi. When you are prepared to offer a different, and apparently more appropriate, definition from a more "technical" dictionary, let me know and we can resume. I'm not even sure I know what a "technical" dictionary would look like.

[seer]

As you wish, Seer. As I've said multiple times, an a priori truth cannot be proven, so you have me unable to defend my position. However, it's somewhat like saying, to the student who completed this mathematical proof:

Carpedm, would you accept the a priori truth that God exists? You know there is a whole, well thought out presuppositional apologetic based on that claim. But that is not the problem. "Existence is a good" is a meaningless claim until you have content and application. How does that apply to the cow you want to eat? What difference does that a priori truth make? Or when the Aliens want to have you for supper? 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?

[seer]

Again, Seer, you are measuring it against "universal." Of COURSE there cannot be a universal goal for a subjective system. Of COURSE that makes no sense in the context of a universal morality. But you are attempting to judge a subjective process - and your complaint boils down to the same one I hear over and over again: "you can't have a subjective moral framework, because then it isn't objective/universal/absolute!" To which I can only respond... of COURSE it's not - it's subjective.

And my answer to your question about a universal justice that is not culturally relative? No - there is not one. There cannot be one, even if there is a god. If a god does exist, and is an independent mind, then that mind will form its own subjective moral code. God may be the biggest and most powerful and most awesome, but god cannot override my moral code unless I am deprived of will in some form. So long as my mind is independent and free to reason - it will form its own moral code. God's is just another moral code in a sea of them, one for each sentient being in existence.

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. 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.