Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?
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 carpedm9587 View PostI am afraid I cannot follow you down the road of "trinity," Matt. I lack the basis. As for the confusion between epistemology and ontology, you'll have to be more specific than just that broad-brush assertion. Exactly where do you see this confusion occurring?
And I repeat what I said earlier - someone else could have an identical moral framework to mine, even arrived at using the same reasoning. But without an "I" to have the framework, the framework I have does not exist. A moral framework does not exist "out there" somewhere in the land of forms. It is a construct of my mind. Until my mind exists, the moral framework does not.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI'm beginning to see that. But the basis for the rejection is as nonsensical/unreasonable to me as mine apparently appears to you. Perhaps there really is no way to convey a philosophy between two such radically divergent worldviews...
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostThen that's necessity "de re", and it's a relational, not a substantival, property. I disagree on both counts. The goodness of a rock's existence is a substantival property, indexed in all the worlds the rock exists in, where existence would be the relational property.
Call me lazy, but I think you can put that sentence in a more parseable form. I lack the language to do so.
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostGod's mental activity.
- The mathematical law of identify
- The philosophical/logical law of non-contradiction
- The intrinsic goodness of existence for a thing
These are all of a piece for me. They are in the same class. But I can clearly see how someone who rejects the goodness of their own existence as a necessary condition is going to see all moral reasoning by a non-religious as "not rooted in reason." And from my side of the "great divide," I see such rejection as equally nonsensical.
I think we have found our disconnect - and I see no resolution for it.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 mattbballman31 View PostYou exist to know about the moral framework. Fine. But that doesn't in any way imply that the ontology of the framework depends on your knowing it via existence. Unless you're presupposing moral anti-realism.
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostSame idea. Unless you presuppose moral anti-realism, the framework could still be there ontologically, without an "I" to link you up epistemologically with the framework. Your claim that the framework doesn't exist "out there" concedes moral anti-realism. I disagree with it. So, I'll disagree with your moral metaphysic. The moral framework isn't just a construct of mind.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 Adrift View PostYeah, that may be the case. Do you know of any philosophers or thinkers who hold to your particular form of subjective morality? What you're proposing doesn't sound like moral relativism, nor does it sound like the sort of pseudo-objective morality that Sam Harris has in mind. I don't think I've come into contact with anyone who sees the concept of morality in quite the way you do.
No, Adrift, I do not know of a philosopher who espouses the views I have proposed. There are elements from various philosophical disciplines (e.g., the concept of goodness and existence being linked in Thomistic and Aristotelian thought, for example), but I have not dived deeply into the formal world of philosophy for many years. To be honest, I find much of it needlessly dense and tedious. It may be a sign of laziness.
P.S. Right now I need to get some work done. I'm taking advantage of the vacation week to play a bit - but I do need to focus a bit on life. I will come back and check the thread at a later time, perhaps this evening or tomorrow.Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-21-2017, 01:58 PM.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 PostBut I can clearly see how someone who rejects the goodness of their own existence as a necessary condition is going to see all moral reasoning by a non-religious as "not rooted in reason." And from my side of the "great divide," I see such rejection as equally nonsensical.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostIf you're referring to seer, I don't think that's exactly how he'd framed it. I'm pretty sure that he believes that there is goodness in existence, but only insofar as man is created in God's image. Outside of that is when you get "not rooted in reason". Or, at least, that's how I think he means it.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 Post- The mathematical law of identify
- The philosophical/logical law of non-contradiction
- The intrinsic goodness of existence for a thing
Carp, I think we went down too many rabbit holes, let's back up a bit. This thread is about grounding ethics in reason. Let me give you your a priori claim - the intrinsic goodness of existence. What follows from that? How do you develop an ethical system from that claim? Could you develop the same ethical system without that a priori grounding?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 PostI do remember why I eventually abandoned philosophy. I found it so riddled with arcane language it was borderline incomprehensible, and the practitioners of philosophy seemed chronically unable to express even the simplest concepts in plain English. I once sat in class while the philosophy professor expounded on this one principle (it was 40 years ago, so I don't even remember the specific principle). I do remember, at the end, I ask him if he meant, "X" where "X" was a single simple sentence, and his response was, "well...yes." I was treated to beers for the rest of the evening by the entire class.
C.S. Lewis said this: "The table I am sitting at looks simple:
but ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of — all about the atoms
and how the light waves rebound from them and hit my eye and what they
do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain — and, of course, you find
that what we call "seeing a table" lands you in mysteries and complications
which you can hardly get to the end of. A child saying a child's prayer looks
simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not
— and the modern world usually is not — if you want to go on and ask what
is really happening — then you must be prepared for something difficult. If
we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the
something more is not simple."
Call me lazy, but I think you can put that sentence in a more parseable form. I lack the language to do so.
You made the moral framework relative to your existence. You don't exist in all worlds. If your existence is a necessary good insofar as it grasps such a framework, the property of "necessary goodness" is a relational property had by all and only those existences that exemplify 'your' essence. Your essence is what makes you "you" in all the worlds you exist in. This is the modal nomenclature you're going to have to familiarize yourself with if you want to stay intelligible.
That is not a response that makes any sense to me whatsoever, because I do not believe such a being exists.
So, in my universe, these principles are simply true a priori. They are "self evident."
They trigger a set of electronic relays in the mind that recognize the implicit truth of the statement.
- The mathematical law of identify
- The philosophical/logical law of non-contradiction
- The intrinsic goodness of existence for a thing
These are all of a piece for me. They are in the same class. But I can clearly see how someone who rejects the goodness of their own existence as a necessary condition is going to see all moral reasoning by a non-religious as "not rooted in reason." And from my side of the "great divide," I see such rejection as equally nonsensical.
I think we have found our disconnect - and I see no resolution for it.
Let me ask you this. What books have you read on moral ontology, moral epistemology, philosophy of religion, and what philosophers or cognitive scientists have you read to help you formulate an informative opinion on your assertions? Maybe we can go from there.Last edited by mattbballman31; 11-21-2017, 02:34 PM.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostIf you're referring to seer, I don't think that's exactly how he'd framed it. I'm pretty sure that he believes that there is goodness in existence, but only insofar as man is created in God's image. Outside of that is when you get "not rooted in reason". Or, at least, that's how I think he means it.
And likewise, it is fairly predictable that someone without a belief in a god is going to see a morality not rooted in such a being as "nonsensical." The Christian worldview makes perfect sense - if you make the presuppositions Christians make to arrive at the worldview. Likewise, the atheist worldview is well grounded, if you make the presuppositions that lead to that worldview. Assessing the internal consistency of each worldview from the presuppositions of its opposite is an exercise in futility. It (predictably) proves or gains nothing.Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-21-2017, 03:42 PM.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, I think we went down too many rabbit holes, let's back up a bit. This thread is about grounding ethics in reason. Let me give you your a priori claim - the intrinsic goodness of existence. What follows from that? How do you develop an ethical system from that claim? Could you develop the same ethical system without that a priori grounding?
I'm not angry. I am a bit disappointed in myself for not "catching on" sooner. Oh well - I'm older and slower. Such is life.Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-21-2017, 03:43 PM.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 PostWe did go through several rabbit holes, Seer - but I have to admit to being somewhat soured on this discussion. If what Adrift supposed (below) is true, the discussion is essentially pointless. I don't think you are the type of person to intentionally troll - but that is what this discussion essentially boils down to. As per your article on "presuppositional apologetics," if you trule want to understand a worldview that differs from yours, you need to willingly suspend your disbelief and explore the presuppositions of the alternative worldview. Continuously hammering on a world view as "not possible because it's not the same as yours" is simply pointless. We already know you don't hold this worldview - and are not likely to. We (I) already know you think it is misguided or misinformed. The question I thought we were exploring is whether it is internally consistent. Apparently, that was not the case.
I'm not angry. I am a bit disappointed in myself for not "catching on" sooner. Oh well - I'm older and slower. Such is life.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 mattbballman31 View PostIt's not arcane. You can't think you're going to make metaphysical assertions with no philosophical baggage. If you can't deal with the baggage, either go study or . . . yes . . . stay lazy. If it's not comprehensible, ask. The language is canonical, and won after centuries of painstaking research. Don't poop on it because you don't get it. Sometimes I don't get it. Then I get off my butt and research. It's as simple as that.
If that makes me lazy, so be it. I will concede the point and will move on.
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostC.S. Lewis said this: "The table I am sitting at looks simple:
but ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of — all about the atoms
and how the light waves rebound from them and hit my eye and what they
do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain — and, of course, you find
that what we call "seeing a table" lands you in mysteries and complications
which you can hardly get to the end of. A child saying a child's prayer looks
simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not
— and the modern world usually is not — if you want to go on and ask what
is really happening — then you must be prepared for something difficult. If
we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the
something more is not simple."
So when I am teaching a sales class about their Metro Ethernet product, I can say "Most business customers with a branch office configuration will ask for an EVPL service unless they host dual data centers, which makes an EVPL service needlessly complex and suggests an EPLAN service." Or I can recognize the level they are at and say, "Most business customers with a branch office configuration will want a service that connects the multiple branches to the central information source - which the Metro Ethernet Forum (or MEF) calls an Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. However, if the business has two information sources (i.e., two data centers), the hub-and-spoke configuration of EVPL gets complicated, and they would benefit from an any-to-any structure, allowing any location to get to either data center freely. The MEF calls this an Ethernet Virtual Private Local Area Network (EVPLAN) service." You have to be "in the know" to understand the first, and my insistence on using such language and sneering, "you should do the work to understand me" is pointless. If I want them to understand me - I need to use the second approach.
In short - as a teacher - I believe it to be the responsibility of the person attempting to communicate something to structure the communication so it can be properly received. If you don't bother, then don't be surprised if your audience disconnects and your message is not received.
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_dicto_and_de_re
You made the moral framework relative to your existence. You don't exist in all worlds. If your existence is a necessary good insofar as it grasps such a framework, the property of "necessary goodness" is a relational property had by all and only those existences that exemplify 'your' essence. Your essence is what makes you "you" in all the worlds you exist in. This is the modal nomenclature you're going to have to familiarize yourself with if you want to stay intelligible.
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostThat's fine. Your modus ponens is my modus tollens. And it can make sense in the sense of being intelligible even if you disagree that the being exists. The dialectic needs to shift to other places at this point. I think "the being" is necessary to explain the moral framework, alone with the existence of everything.
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostBeing a priori and being self evident does not mean necessity. Plantinga talks about this in The Nature of Necessity.
I don't see why this is such a difficult concept to grasp - but apparently it is. It may well be the great divide between a theistic and an atheistic worldview.
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostI don't care about the truth of statements. I'm talking about the ontology of the moral framework to which such statements would correspond. A moral figuralist could say the statements are true, and yet not true by virtue of corresponding to anything in the world. Quine's criterion of ontological commitment is way off.
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostKnowing those three things as self-evident or knowing them a priori doesn't say anything about their necessity. Completely different. I don't reject the goodness of my own existence as a necessary condition. And I don't deny that it's rooted in reason. How does that mean that 'rooting it in reason' doesn't imply that doing that is an arbitrary, explanatory stopping point? We can't map out a dialectic for why that can't be? By rooting it in reason, what ontology are you ascribing to reason? Are you a platonist? These are questions you have to ask.
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post"Carl Van Loon: And you would even think that, would only show me how unprepared you are to be on your own." - Limitless.
Let me ask you this. What books have you read on moral ontology, moral epistemology, philosophy of religion, and what philosophers or cognitive scientists have you read to help you formulate an informative opinion on your assertions? Maybe we can go from there.
So if your plan is to discuss philosophical principles with me, you're going to have to meet me on my turf. I'm willing to do a reasonable amount of work to understand a discussion, but I'm not willing to spend my days boning up on a discipline just so I can understand what someone else is saying. When I have a thought or opinion I want to convey - it is my responsibility to convey it, as best I can, in a manner my listener can grasp. After all - it is I who wants to communicate the idea. I'm not going to accept that it is my job to "develop the background" so that I can understand a message you want to convey.
So if you're not willing to do that, then you have my permission (not that you need it) to write me off as a philosophical simpleton and disengage from a discussion that is beneath your philosophical skills.Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-21-2017, 03:56 PM.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 PostDoe this mean we aren't going out for a beer?
I just am not seeing the point of your original question. What exactly were you trying to achieve? The exchange we have been having suggests "understanding" was not the objective.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 whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
13 responses
41 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 11:03 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
78 responses
411 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 10:50 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment