To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[Adrift]

If Seer only sees "goodness in existence" as a function of his religious beliefs, then he will necessarily reject any worldview as "unreasonable" what does not incorporate that worldview. If that is the case, what was the purpose of the original post? By definition, he will see any response as "unreasonable." So was the purpose merely to troll? I would take exception to that. If you know the end result of the question, posing it seems pointless to me.

And likewise, it is fairly predictable that someone without a belief in a god is going to see a morality 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.

I'm not really sure what original post you're referring to. I don't think seer has been trolling. If he's posing a question assuming your worldview, he's doing so so that he can help you understand why he disagrees with it by showing you how it leads to dead ends. Also, I haven't seen him presuppose anything so far. I take it that he's used some sort of reasoning, likely inductive, to come to his conclusions even if he hasn't detailed fully how he's arrived at those conclusions. Admitting that he agrees that there is goodness in existence if that existence is created in the image of God isn't presuppositional in of itself.

[mattbballman31]

Sorry, Matt - but I just have no patience for the incredibly ponderous language most philosophers devolve to: to whit "de dicto" instead of "from the spoken" and "de re" instead of "from the thing." I have found, over the years, that every speciality develops a language - whether it's plumbing or construction or philosophy or medical, etc. Most of the time, the language is needlessly arcane, creating a kind of "closed language" only available to the initiated, or those will to be initiated. Except the average person doesn't have enough hours in the day to become expert in all of the arcane languages they encounter. If the needless complexity were omitted, more people could engage intelligibly. I simply have no patience for it.

If that makes me lazy, so be it. I concede the point and will move on.

Okay, then you're lazy. Calling it needlessly complex begs the question.

I am not impatient with complexity, Matt - I am impatient with needless complexity. I am impatient with those who render their language needlessly dense and then turn up their noses at the "great unwashed" who are not versed in the specialize language. I teach for a living - and I teach a highly complex field to people who are "not versed" in the language. I know it is possible to hold a conversation about a complex thing without burying the person on the receiving end in jargon, ensuring communication will not occur.

Yea, introducing two Latin terms - required to make a distinction - is BURYING you in jargon. Sorry about that.

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.

I'm not surprised if there's lazy people out there. It's a part of life. I made it clear that if you have a question, ask. I'll do my best. I also believe that it's a virtue of the non-initiate to not pontificate about something when told about the complexities of something. If all you're going to do is whine about not getting it, I can't help you.

As far as I know, Matt, I exist in one world - this one. So this entire block is nonsensical to me. I have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

Let's start here. Are you aware of possible world semantics?

I have no clue what a "modus ponens" or "modus tolens" is. My latin is 40 years old and rusty, and I have no patience for looking up multiple words in each sentence just to follow the conversation. If you're trying to make a point, I have to tell you it is lost on me. Most of this sentence does not even seem to follow normal structural and syntactical rules...?

MP:
1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore, Q

MT:

1. If P, then Q
2. ~Q
3. Therefore ~P

Let Q be "God Exists". Let P be "There are necessary truths." So, if I say your MT is my MP, we're disagreeing about God's existence being required for necessary truths. Easy as that. All you had to do was ask!

It is not clear to me why that would make a difference. A thing that is a priori true or self-evident is true - period.

That's not what I said. I said there's a distinct difference between an a priori truth, a self-evident truth, and a necessary truth.

One can deny it to be true only at the risk of undermining rational discourse.

Yea, that's necessary truths. I can deny self-evident or a priori truths all day without contradiction.

If you deny the a priori truth of the law of identity, mathematical discussions become impossible. If you deny the a priori truth of the law of non-contradiction, most philosophical discourse becomes impossible.

Yep. That wasn't my point. But now that were here . . . Sure. What's the best explanation of the truth of the modal proposition that the denial of necessary truths is self-contradictory? I'm asking about the grounding of the modal proposition. Are you aware of what that means?

If you deny the a priori truth of the goodness of existence to the thing existing, moral discourse cannot proceed.

So what? I don't care about moral discourse not proceeding. That's a practical matter. I care about the ontological absence of a moral framework, and whether that absence depends on my not existing to be linked up with it. You don't see the difference?

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.

Hmmm. Maybe you're a bad communicator. There's a difference between disagreeing and not grasping a concept. I get what you're saying.

Again, if there a message in here - it was not received. I have no idea what you are trying to convey.

Which part? I won't unpack what's not necessary.

Apparently you believe I need to ask them, but most of this is meaningless to me. Your first few sentences are fine all the way to "rooted in reason." After that I have no clue what you are trying to ask or say, so I have no clue what I am supposed to be asking.

Well, be more specific about what part you need help with, and I'll help you out.

My formal philosophical training is 40 years old. I am familiar with some broad concepts attributed to certain philosophers (Aquinas, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Locke, etc.), and with basic logic and methodology (e.g., Socratic method, rules of logic, etc.). Most of what I believe is "home grown." It is based on 59 years of life, both as a Christian and, later, as an atheist. It is rooted in basic logic and personal experience. I don't point to "philosopher X" as the source of my beliefs, but I will point out parallels where they exist (e.g., Thomistic thought on goodness and existence). That doesn't mean I am rooted in Thomistic thought, it means I point to him as analogous in some respects to my lines of thought.

Okay . . . So nothing of relevance to the points we're discussing.

So if your plan is to discuss philosophical principles with me, you're going to have to meet me on my turf.

As soon as you give me a concrete example about where your turf is (instead of just saying like Josh in the movie Big: "I don't get it."), then I can help you. Trust me, dude. I'll return the favor. It's all about acknowledging your limits and asking specific questions regarding a specific subject-matter.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not really sure what original post you're referring to. I don't think seer has been trolling. If he's posing a question assuming your worldview, he's doing so so that he can help you understand why he disagrees with it by showing you how it leads to dead ends. Also, I haven't seen him presuppose anything so far. I take it that he's used some sort of reasoning, likely inductive, to come to his conclusions even if he hasn't detailed fully how he's arrived at those conclusions. Admitting that he agrees that there is goodness in existence if that existence is created in the image of God isn't presuppositional in of itself.

The discussion, from my perspective, has been a sequence of taking pieces of my sentences (rather than the whole) and applying them in ways I never suggested, and pointing out it "doesn't work." Of course it doesn't work - I never intended them to be used in that way. The rest took the form of most discussions of this ilk: that moral framework doesn't work because it doesn't have an objective end." Of COURSE it doesn't have an objective end - it's a SUBJECTIVE framework. As I noted before, the argument reduces to, "subjective frameworks don't work because they're not objective." That's an assertion, not an argument. If you begin with the assumption that a moral framework MUST be objective to be "real," then ALL subjective frameworks will fail that test, by definition. Why bother even having the discussion?

[carpedm9587]

I have a habit of going back and editing my posts after I make them. Probably better to wait until the edit time has expired before responding to me, or you may miss part of what I had to say. Bad habit, I know. But such is life.

And no, Matt - I'm not lazy, or whining, or anything else suggested - but you are entitled to your view. I simply refuse to accept responsibility for successfully receiving a message someone else is trying to convey. I'll simply say, "sorry - you're not speaking a language I understand - message not received," and leave you to decide if you want to try again using different language. My wife and I have this discussion regularly. I work with my sound-canceling headset on to reduce distraction. She sometimes speaks to me while I am working, and then gets angry when she later discovers I have no clue what she said. Successful communication is the responsibility of person with a message they are trying to convey. It's not the responsibility of the receiver to be "up to speed" (in our case) or "constantly available" (in the case of my wife) to receiving the message. I will make a reasonable effort to understand - beyond that, I will simply convey my lack of understanding.

I've gone through your post once and will do so again before responding. Maybe later tonight - probably tomorrow.

[mattbballman31]

I have a habit of going back and editing my posts after I make them. Probably better to wait until the edit time has expired before responding to me, or you may miss part of what I had to say. Bad habit, I know. But such is life.

No problem, sir!

And no, Matt - I'm not lazy, or whining, or anything else suggested - but you are entitled to your view. I simply refuse to accept responsibility for successfully receiving a message someone else is trying to convey.

And . . . what if I said the same to you? Put a test of universalizability on that one!

I'll simply say, "sorry - you're not speaking a language I understand - message not received," and leave you to decide if you want to try again using different language.

Nope, not gonna happen. I'll respond to specific questions regarding specific points. To just say, "I don't get it." will lead to huge swaths of exposition.

My wife and I have this discussion regularly. I work with my sound-canceling headset on to reduce distraction. She sometimes speaks to me while I am working, and then gets angry when she later discovers I have no clue what she said. Successful communication is the responsibility of person with a message they are trying to convey. It's not the responsibility of the receiver to be "up to speed" (in our case) or "constantly available" (in the case of my wife) to receiving the message. I will make a reasonable effort to understand - beyond that, I will simply convey my lack of understanding.

Okay, the relationship we'll have will be completely different than that between you and your wife. And the way a philosophical conversation is going to proceed will be completely different than the way a husband and wife will settle an issue. I think I'm being fair. If you have a position, I'm going to critique it. If you don't get it, ask which part of the critique you don't get it. Then, I'll clarify. If my clarification doesn't work, just ask what part of the clarification wasn't clear. Be specific, and I'll oblige you with my best.

I've gone through your post once and will do so again before responding. Maybe later tonight - probably tomorrow.

Cool! Take your time.

[carpedm9587]

Okay, then you're lazy. Calling it needlessly complex begs the question.

Yea, introducing two Latin terms - required to make a distinction - is BURYING you in jargon. Sorry about that.

I'm not surprised if there's lazy people out there. It's a part of life. I made it clear that if you have a question, ask. I'll do my best. I also believe that it's a virtue of the non-initiate to not pontificate about something when told about the complexities of something. If all you're going to do is whine about not getting it, I can't help you.

Let's start here. Are you aware of possible world semantics?

MP:
1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore, Q

MT:
1. If P, then Q
2. ~Q
3. Therefore ~P

Let Q be "God Exists". Let P be "There are necessary truths." So, if I say your MT is my MP, we're disagreeing about God's existence being required for necessary truths. Easy as that. All you had to do was ask!

That's not what I said. I said there's a distinct difference between an a priori truth, a self-evident truth, and a necessary truth.

Yea, that's necessary truths. I can deny self-evident or a priori truths all day without contradiction.

Yep. That wasn't my point. But now that were here . . . Sure. What's the best explanation of the truth of the modal proposition that the denial of necessary truths is self-contradictory? I'm asking about the grounding of the modal proposition. Are you aware of what that means?

So what? I don't care about moral discourse not proceeding. That's a practical matter. I care about the ontological absence of a moral framework, and whether that absence depends on my not existing to be linked up with it. You don't see the difference?

Hmmm. Maybe you're a bad communicator. There's a difference between disagreeing and not grasping a concept. I get what you're saying.

Which part? I won't unpack what's not necessary.

Well, be more specific about what part you need help with, and I'll help you out.

Okay . . . So nothing of relevance to the points we're discussing.

As soon as you give me a concrete example about where your turf is (instead of just saying like Josh in the movie Big: "I don't get it."), then I can help you. Trust me, dude. I'll return the favor. It's all about acknowledging your limits and asking specific questions regarding a specific subject-matter.

You know what, I'm going to reverse myself. I've given this a bit of thought, and I think I'm going to disconnect, Matt. I don't know if you intend it, but there is an intellectual arrogance to your posts, and nobody likes to learn from someone with an air of lorded superiority. It is clear to me that there is much you could teach me about philosophy, and you could refresh many of my dusty philosophical brain cells. Your philosophical knowledge exceeds mine by orders of magnitude. Normally, I would enjoy such an exchange. But I am simply not willing to spend the time being talked-down-to in order to learn it.

If you can see fit to post without the condescension and jibes, perhaps we can continue. Otherwise, let's just both acknowledge that I am way beneath your philosophical skills and probably not worth your time. It'll keep my blood pressure in acceptable ranges and free you up to "talk with the big boys."

[mattbballman31]

You know what, I'm going to reverse myself. I've given this a bit of thought, and I think I'm going to disconnect, Matt.

I think you're overthinking it, man.

I don't know if you intend it, but there is an intellectual arrogance to your posts, and nobody likes to learn from someone with an air of lorded superiority.

Examples, please? That's a pretty hefty accusation.

It is clear to me that there is much you could teach me about philosophy, and you could refresh many of my dusty philosophical brain cells. Your philosophical knowledge exceeds mine by orders of magnitude. Normally, I would enjoy such an exchange. But I am simply not willing to spend the time being talked-down-to in order to learn it.

Not talking down to you at all. Just telling it like it is.

If you can see fit to post without the condescension and jibes, perhaps we can continue. Otherwise, let's just both acknowledge that I am way beneath your philosophical skills and probably not worth your time. It'll keep my blood pressure in acceptable ranges and free you up to "talk with the big boys."

Give me an example of a condescension or a jibe, and I'll see whether or not I did it for a reason. If I didn't, I'll apologize and move on. No big deal, man. Don't let a discussion forum affect your blood pressure.

[seer]

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.

No actually it was, since this was an ethics thread I was trying to see how you got from your a priori belief to an ethical system. I just did not see the logical connection.

[carpedm9587]

I think you're overthinking it, man.

Examples, please? That's a pretty hefty accusation.

As requested:

- Okay, then you're lazy. Calling it needlessly complex begs the question. (arrogant)
- Yea, introducing two Latin terms - required to make a distinction - is BURYING you in jargon. Sorry about that. (sarcastic)
- I'm not surprised if there's lazy people out there. It's a part of life. (labeling the "student" lazy is, in my professional experience, not conducive to learning)
- So what? I don't care about moral discourse not proceeding. (arrogant)
- Okay . . . So nothing of relevance to the points we're discussing. (arrogant, given life experience and the rest of the things on the list)

Look - there's an old saying that goes, "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear." Well, I like to think I'm always ready to learn, but I don't get the sense that you're the teacher for me. As I said, I am a teacher by profession. I would never think to express myself to a student in the way you do. I KNOW, from experience, it would sour the learning relationship. I'm happy to learn - I'm just not happy to be talked down to or disparaged in the process. Color me human. If that makes me a "whiner," I'll have to live with the label. At my age, life is too short to tolerate unpleasantness.

Not talking down to you at all. Just telling it like it is.

Give me an example of a condescension or a jibe, and I'll see whether or not I did it for a reason. If I didn't, I'll apologize and move on. No big deal, man. Don't let a discussion forum affect your blood pressure.

In my experience, Matt, "telling it like it is" most often is a self-justification for pretty much anything at all. Trump is "just telling it like it is." Biden is "just telling it like it is." Both use it as a smokescreen for rudeness and a lack of human decency. It is possible to be forthright, AND civil all at the same time. It is possible to teach, and challenge, with empathy and concern for the learner.

Somehow, I just don't see that happening here. But I could be wrong. If you wish to try again, I'll give it a go. But I come here for discourse and an exchange of ideas. I'm not looking to condescend to anyone, or be condescended to.

I guess you could say this is my version of "telling it like it is." Hopefully, I have not done so rudely or without civility.

[carpedm9587]

No actually it was, since this was an ethics thread I was trying to see how you got from your a priori belief to an ethical system. I just did not see the logical connection.

It might help, Seer, if you did not continually misapply my statements. For example, I cannot tell you how repeatedly I answered the question about the alien, but each time you eventually responded with the same question, as if it had never been answered.

Permit me, if I may, to draw the canvas more broadly. Perhaps we are "into the tree bark," as we used to say in my old job. If that is not a familiar phrase, it means we're so close to the tree we not only have lost sight of the forest, but we really can't even see the tree anymore - just the bark.

My morality is subjective. I have said that multiple times, and attempted to show how I arrive at my moral code through reason. It seems to me that a big disconnect for us is how that moral code than translates to daily life. What does MY moral code have to do with the rest of the world? Perhaps I can explain that by observing the following:

1) I use my moral code to assess my own behavior, and determine if I am acting morally or immorally (in the light of that code).

2) Because it IS my moral framework, I will also use it to evaluate the behavior of people around me. I will see someone else as "acting immorally" if their actions run counter to my moral code. That does not mean they are assessing themselves in the same way, nor does it give me authority over them. It is merely an assessment.

3) Because my moral code is my definition of what "ought" to happen, I will tend to seek out the company of people who's moral code most closely approximates my own. To do otherwise exposes me to constant "immoral" behavior (by MY code), which is psychologically uncomfortable and interferes with my quest for happiness. All people do this.

4) Because we tend to congregate with people that have like moral codes, what emerges is a form of communal moral code. Membership in that community is then subject to that moral code. Someone who defies the communal moral code is usually implicitly or explicitly removed from the group, or pressured to adhere to the communal code. We see this dynamic in religions, neighborhoods, social clubs, and even social networks. Watch the grouping of people on facebook, and you will find they tend to group in clusters with like moral codes.

5) This dynamic occurs at multiple, and sometimes overlapping, levels. For example, a nation, like the U.S., often contains multiple groups with differing moral codes. The moral precepts they have in common are easily encoded into law (i.e., most of us have a moral precept against random killing of other humans). Moral codes that are not commonly/widely held, or are in a state of flux are more difficult (if not impossible) to encode into law, and the group struggles. The overlap can sometimes create tensions. If my religiously based moral code is at odds with the moral code at my workplace, I will feel "out-of-place." Eventually, assuming the religiously-based moral code is paramount to me, I will probably go seek a different employment to minimize the cognitive discomfort.

6) Because each person's moral code is subjective, they are constantly under pressure from circumstance, the community, new and foreign ideas entering the group, and they can and do evolve. When a moral code changes, it does so for a reason. It may be the exposure of flawed reasoning, or better understanding of a particular circumstance. It is normal for the individual or group to see the "new" moral code as superior to the one it displaces, or the change would not have occurred. So we see ourselves as "morally evolving." That is what is happening today around gay rights and the LGBT community. The process is messy and painful because not all groups evolve at the same rate, and not all individuals within a given group evolve with the group. Sometimes that leads groups to splinter and perhaps even recombine with other groups of like mind. People change religious affiliations, club memberships, even their living place, because of these changes.

This is how I see the world functioning. It is a perfectly workable system. It does not require a god. It does not require an "absolute" frame of reference. Fortunately, because we all live in the same universe and have the same basic reasoning structure, most of our moral codes align fairly well. There are basic precepts that are common to virtually everyone. We find these enshrined in the moral codes of the major religions, and integrated into the legal structures of most countries. When we get into the details, however, and the application of those precepts in complex circumstances, that's usually were we find the most disagreement.

It's messy, no question about it. But so too is most of life. As Matt suggested, its complexity does not mean it is not an accurate description.

[Tassman]

I'm with seer on this. The idea that one's own existence is a good, but only subjectively, and that should be the framework of an entire morality seems...bonkers. You're using the word "morality" in a way that makes zero sense. To me anyways. There's a reason why most skeptics on this forum prefer to think of their own morality as objective rather than subjective...a subjective morality just doesn't work, at least, not in the way you've attempted to defend it here.

Morality refers to rules of behaviour, no more than that. All morals are derivatives of the natural instincts of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. You can attribute the source of morality to a deity if you wish, but this is not supported by substantive evidence whereas the evidence does suggest morality is grounded in natural selection.

[Adrift]

Morality refers to rules of behaviour, no more than that. All morals are derivatives of the natural instincts of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. You can attribute the source of morality to a deity if you wish, but this is not supported by substantive evidence whereas the evidence does suggest morality is grounded in natural selection.

Yes, I'm fully aware you believe that. Do you believe in an objective morality or a subjective morality?

[Tassman]

Yes, I'm fully aware you believe that. Do you believe in an objective morality or a subjective morality?

Morality is subjective and is based upon the awareness of and response to the social rules of the group... i.e. a communal moral code.

[Roy]

I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

I do too - but doubt diminishes over time.

[seer]

It might help, Seer, if you did not continually misapply my statements. For example, I cannot tell you how repeatedly I answered the question about the alien, but each time you eventually responded with the same question, as if it had never been answered.

Permit me, if I may, to draw the canvas more broadly. Perhaps we are "into the tree bark," as we used to say in my old job. If that is not a familiar phrase, it means we're so close to the tree we not only have lost sight of the forest, but we really can't even see the tree anymore - just the bark.

My morality is subjective. I have said that multiple times, and attempted to show how I arrive at my moral code through reason. It seems to me that a big disconnect for us is how that moral code than translates to daily life. What does MY moral code have to do with the rest of the world? Perhaps I can explain that by observing the following:

Carp, I understand that you believe morality is subjective and relative, but that was not what I was asking. You kept stressing your belief in the a priori claim that existence was a good. I was simply trying to see how that logically informed your subjective moral view. It seems to me that it doesn't. Your moral system or belief has nothing to do with your a priori claim. I think it was on this point that we went off the track...

That is what is happening today around gay rights and the LGBT community. The process is messy and painful because not all groups evolve at the same rate, and not all individuals within a given group evolve with the group.

Now this is interesting. If ethics are subjective and relative then what are we evolving to and from? What is better or worse? It seems to me that you have a moral goal in mind, but isn't that goal also subjective?