Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    These are not assumptions. They are universal, measurable constants and have a physical quantity that is seen to be both universal in nature and have constant value in time.
    Nonsense Tass, prove that nature will act tomorrow as it does today, prove that the laws of nature are universal, prove that logical laws are universal. These are unproven assumptions.
    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
      See my previous response. You are making the same error - again.
      What error? That you have to argue in a circle (or beg the question) to support your moral claims (what you find moral or not)?

      Useless to you, because of your flawed reasoning. Useful to most people who use language conventionally.
      What? You are the one who said the term moral sanity was useless. Which makes sense since there is no objective way to measure it in your world. Heck in relativism a good Nazi could be morally sane.


      Well... it is a pattern with you, Seer. YOu have a tendency to try to redefine your way to your conclusions. I frankly don't expect that pattern to change.

      That is false Carp, besides our discussion about natural/supernatural show me where I did that. I actually tend to use accepted definitions.
      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 Jim B. View Post
        "IMO" is usually intended as a "rhetorical device." It's not usually meant as a literal marker to mean that one is expressing one's opinion. It's meant as a way to show some humility, attempt at fellow-feeling,camaraderie or an attempt to show that willingness, etc. You seem extremely literal-minded, if you don't mind my saying so.
        A number of posters have noted carpedm's...unusual take on language. Either defining words idiosyncratically, or holding to strict dictionary definitions to a degree unwarranted by their ordinary/greater meaning and usage. There have been a number of times where I've had to explain simple turns of phrase or figures of speech that he took over-literally like the "IMO" example above. I suspect some of that is just defensiveness, but who knows (he'd likely retort that it's mind-reading, or that the issue is with posers here, as he's had few problems with posters on other forums). I think the myopic points you find yourself constantly haggling over, and his reluctance or inability to see the bigger picture is part of that literal-mindedness you observe. Unfortunately it's lead to a number of posters (seer excluded) giving up on the idea that constructive conversation is possible.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          A number of posters have noted carpedm's...unusual take on language. Either defining words idiosyncratically, or holding to strict dictionary definitions to a degree unwarranted by their ordinary/greater meaning and usage. There have been a number of times where I've had to explain simple turns of phrase or figures of speech that he took over-literally like the "IMO" example above. I suspect some of that is just defensiveness, but who knows (he'd likely retort that it's mind-reading, or that the issue is with posers here, as he's had few problems with posters on other forums). I think the myopic points you find yourself constantly haggling over, and his reluctance or inability to see the bigger picture is part of that literal-mindedness you observe. Unfortunately it's lead to a number of posters (seer excluded) giving up on the idea that constructive conversation is possible.
          Carp suffers from binary thinking...
          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 Adrift View Post
            A number of posters have noted carpedm's...unusual take on language. Either defining words idiosyncratically, or holding to strict dictionary definitions to a degree unwarranted by their ordinary/greater meaning and usage. There have been a number of times where I've had to explain simple turns of phrase or figures of speech that he took over-literally like the "IMO" example above. I suspect some of that is just defensiveness, but who knows (he'd likely retort that it's mind-reading, or that the issue is with posers here, as he's had few problems with posters on other forums). I think the myopic points you find yourself constantly haggling over, and his reluctance or inability to see the bigger picture is part of that literal-mindedness you observe. Unfortunately it's lead to a number of posters (seer excluded) giving up on the idea that constructive conversation is possible.
            That's good to know that it's not just me. Thanks, Adrift.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Nonsense Tass, prove that nature will act tomorrow as it does today, prove that the laws of nature are universal, prove that logical laws are universal. These are unproven assumptions.
              There are no proofs in science, merely theories that have been multiply tested to the extent we can act as though they are true. Hence, we can develop advanced technologies and safely engage in space travel on the basis of this scientific knowledge.

              Conversely there is no substantive evidence to support your notion that a deity was necessary for us to evolve on this particular planet in this particular universe or indeed that such a deity even exists.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                There are no proofs in science, merely theories that have been multiply tested to the extent we can act as though they are true. Hence, we can develop advanced technologies and safely engage in space travel on the basis of this scientific knowledge.

                Conversely there is no substantive evidence to support your notion that a deity was necessary for us to evolve on this particular planet in this particular universe or indeed that such a deity even exists.
                That is not the point Tass, I did not say that science wasn't useful, but it is based on unprovable assumptions, a few of which I mentioned. And I'm not sure what kind of evidence you would require for a God akin to the Christian God. What kind evidence would you consider compelling?
                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 Jim B. View Post
                  Okay, I appreciate the fact that you demurred and said "more cohesive," but I challenge the assertion that you can find many moral frameworks at the descriptive level 'with no outright internal contradictions.'
                  OK, I could have said that better. The point is, cohesion in the collective moral framework is a word I use to reflect the degree to which the individual moral frameworks within the society are aligned. If all of the individuals in a society had exactly the same moral framework, the framework of the society would be "cohesive" or "fully aligned" - a state that is not likely to be achieved in nature. For an individual, I use "cohesive" with reference to internal contradictions. The fewer internal contradictions, the more cohesive the moral framework. Again, 100% cohesion (or 0% cohesion) is not something you'll likely find in nature. You'll just find more and less cohesive frameworks.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  I wrote the "truth content" when I should have written "truth value," ie whether or not a sentence is truth-bearing, that is whether it is a candidate for truth or falsity. But you're right, I think we're digressing a bit.
                  Acknowledged.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  But there are other forms of communication aside from language. There are no other tools for nail pounding aside from hammers.
                  I think, if you think about this for a bit, you'd find this is simply not true. Indeed, language is a very effective tool (the most?) for communication and a hammer is a very effective tool for hammering nails. But I have hammered nails with a brick, a pipe wrench, a rock, and even the handle of a screwdriver in some circumstances. Anything with weight and sufficient density can be used to pound a nail. The hammer is simply best suited to that task because it was explicitly designed for that function. So too with language.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  "The tool is not the thing'? Please explain. Although I suspect it's not worth it.
                  Your use language appears to equate "language" with "communication," essentially conflating the two and resulting in some of your odd statements. Just like a "hammer" is not "pounding," but is rather the tool used to perform the act of pounding, language is not communication. It is the tool by which we can communicate. You are attributing to language things that belong to communication.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  I respectfully disagree.
                  Respectful is something I appreciate about our discussion. But how can you disagree with "I'm disagreeing with your articulation of the concepts?" I am actually disagreeing with how you are articulating the concepts.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  "In terms of" is a perfectly clear construction in that context.
                  Your statement was, "I'm communicating to you in terms of a sentence that is potentially true, and thus potentially false." In that sentence, "in terms of" is an odd construct, IMO. "I'm communicating to you using (or by way of) a sentence that is potentially true, and thus potentially false." "In terms of" is a phrase that means "with regard to the particular aspect or subject specified." So the sentences "I don't think you can justify acquiring that printer in terms of price" and "I don't think you can justify acquiring that printer in terms of labor" make sense. In other words, "in terms of" using references a metric used to assess something. Synonyms include "with regards to" or "regarding." You don't "communicate in terms of a sentence;" you communicate "using" or "by way of" a sentence.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  Is there something about you I should know? I ask this in a perfectly honest, respectful way just as a means of facilitating our discussion.
                  I have one kidney? I tend to prefer to put my left sock on first? I have no idea what you're asking here. I'm almost 61 and working to retire within the next few months?

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  I didn't say truth is a tool. Truth is a norm by which language operates.
                  And we disagree here. You are (again) ascribing a norm to "language" that belongs to "communication."

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  Language is not strictly or entirely a "tool" either. That functional, reductive way of looking at language was abandoned in the 19th and early 20th Century. It's a rather simplistic way of looking at human language and cognition.
                  I have no idea who you think abandoned this concept. The definitions of language I find are:

                  "the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way."
                  "the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community"
                  "a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings"
                  "a system of conventional spoken, manual, or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves."

                  All of these definitions, and all of the others I found and did not include align with what I have been saying: language is a means/tool/manner by which we communicate. There is no "norm for truth" implied by any of these definitions, and it is not intrinsic to "language" per se. It IS intrinsic to human communication that, when we communicate, we do so truthfully. Society is based on trust, and truth is an important building block of trust. But that is about communication and community, not language per se.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  "IMO" is usually intended as a "rhetorical device." It's not usually meant as a literal marker to mean that one is expressing one's opinion. It's meant as a way to show some humility, attempt at fellow-feeling,camaraderie or an attempt to show that willingness, etc.
                  As I said, Jim, while I will toss an occasional "IMO" in my posts, I don't find myself using it excessively and instead assume the other person knows I am expressing my views. I usually insert it when my comments are beginning to move towards a evaluation related to the person, rather than the argument being made. If that makes me come across as "less humble," I guess I'll have to deal with it. I make every attempt to keep my arguments about the argument and not the person making it. While not 100% successful at that, I think I'm not too bad at it, even after taking one personal character swipe after another from the denizens of these fora.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  You seem extremely literal-minded, if you don't mind my saying so.
                  I don't mind in the least. I would hope that a discussion in which our only means of communication is the written word, we would tend to be somewhat literal in our use of language. So I take your observation as a compliment. In my experience, many (most?) disagreements are rooted in a misunderstanding of concepts and terms, not in actual disagreement of principles.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  Do you mean that pleasure being a good in itself is oxymoronic to you or the very concept of a good-in-itself is oxymoronic?
                  The latter, which implies the former - so both!

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  There is nothing you seek of savor just for its own sake? Giving or receiving love? A pleasant meal? Looking at a sunset?
                  Again - many of the things you list have attributes that I find pleasing - and what I find pleasing I am drawn to. That is pretty much why I call it "pleasing." But the "good" or "pleasure" I find in these things rest in how I assess them. A sunset is not "beautiful" or "pleasing" because it somehow intrinsically has these qualities. A sunset has qualities like "color" and "luminosity" and "duration" and symmetry/asymmetry, and "proximity to clouds," and so forth. I look at that combination of attributes and experience "pleasure." The pleasure is in me - it's not in the sunset. I see the combination of attributes and assess them as "beautiful." That is my assessment. Another person might look at exactly the same sunset and experience it as "ugly." Maybe they strongly dislike some of the colors, or the intensity of the light, or the sense of day ending. If two people can look at the same thing and one experience pleasure and the other experience displeasure - then pleasure and displeasure is within the person - not the thing. If two people can look at the same thing and one assess it as "beauty" and another as "ugly," then the assessment is in the person - not the thing.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  All intrinsic goods presuppose experiences and all experiences presuppose an experiencer, ie a valuer or assessor.
                  If the "good" cannot exist without the experiencer and assessor, how can it be said to be "intrinsic?" And if two people can experience/assess the same thing and arrive at different assessments (i.e., one assesses as good and the other as "not good," how can this assessment be intrinsic to the thing because assessed?

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  No evidence in non-human species of normativity or principles or of being able to adopt the subjunctive or hypothetical mood relative to oneself, all of which take a pretty high order of self-abstraction.
                  You might want to look into the works of Bekoff and Pierce, to name just a couple involved in this research. We have systematically been finding that many of the attributes commonly associated only with humans are not so singularly associated. Instead of seeing "only present in humans" we are beginning to realize that most of these attributes are "most developed" in humans, but begin to manifest in other species to varying degrees depending on their level of sentience. This human-centered arrogance that we have so long been prone to is systematically being challenged as we find advanced communication, tool making, and even moral behavior in other species. I think you're being a bit too black and white here.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  Well, you need to write more carefully. Here's the paragraph header:

                  And then after one sentence:
                  Agreed - I wrote both of those things. At no point does that mean moral principles are subjective BECAUSE legal principles are subjective. As I noted, the point was, both of these types of principles deal with human behavior and are normative in nature. Legal principles have these characteristics and are clearly subjective with no one making any serious argument that "they can't be subjective because then they couldn't be normative. But that is exactly the argument being made for moral principles. So why is the argument being made in one domain and not in the other?

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  No, except for normativity, these are all normative. These are what we are aiming towards in our moral systems. You really ought to try to learn what normativity is and how it differs from being descriptive. You keep confusing the two.
                  I suggest you give an example of where I have confused the two. I don't see that I have. Meanwhile, I am using "normative" as I understand it to be defined: "establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior." Above you state, "except for normativity, these are all normative." Substituting, that means "universality is normative." Substituting again we get "universality is establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior."

                  That sentence makes no sense to me whatsoever. How can universality be "normative?" And even if you can answer that, you still have not shown that moral norms are universal - so you're assuming your conclusion.

                  ETA: It dawns on me that I may have finally parsed this sentence. Is it possible that "universality is normative" is your way of saying, "we are all trying to universalize our moral norms?" In other words, we all think our moral norms OUGHT to be universally agreed upon? If this is indeed what you mean, then I completely agree. My moral norms are subjective to me, and I think they should be the universal norm. Indeed, I will work hard to convince others that their moral position should align with mine. They will do the same. We do not do that because we think there is some "objectively true moral principle" to which we should all align. We do that because what we value is most protected/enhanced/nurtured if a) we all commonly value it, and b) we all derive the same moral principles to protect/enhance/nurture what we value. There is no conflict here: we are assessing not only ourselves, but all actions of all sentient beings through the eyes of our moral framework. Of COURSE we will want everyone to agree with us.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  But wouldn't law carry residual religious baggage as well. Why do we not see it as much there? Law has to do with societal norms, punishment, reward, keeping God's laws.
                  We do see it, to some degree. Indeed, the more the legal system is based on underlying religious principles, the more we tend to see these kinds of claims. But we have a wide array of societies NOT rooted in religious foundations that still have legal principles - and law does not limit itself to the territory covered by morality - it also includes territory required for a functional society. So there is a moral norm that aligns with the legal prohibition against random killing, but there is no moral norm associated with the legal requirement to have a driver's license before driving, or for incumbent phone companies in the U.S. to be required to provide service to hard-to-reach customers, or for all of us to pay a tax on our phone lines to fund the universal service pool.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  Because it leaves out essential parts unexplained. It's reductive. Like when phyicalists try to 'explain' consciousness, they leave the essential part out of it in order for consciousness to fit into a physical world picture. Like trying to cram a round peg into a square hole. You're trying to re-define the subject matter, in this case, morality, to fit your already agreed upon theory. It strikes many as Procrustean.
                  So, let's get concrete here instead of sticking with all of these vague assertions. Identify one specific thing that a subjective notion of morality "leaves unexplained."

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  I think I see the source of the confusion. I'm not offering the analogy as evidence that I am right. That would be question-begging. I am offering the analogy as part of my argument. You have to understand it as part of the broader context of an argument I'm making, but that I can never get to because we keep haggling over these myopic points you keep raising. It's part of a broader argument.
                  Look at these two sentences, Jim:

                  1) I'm not offering the analogy as evidence that I am right.
                  2) I am offering the analogy as part of my argument.

                  Now please explain to me how something that is "part of your argument" is not "evidence that I am right?"

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  No problem because you're talking about everyday prudence and practicality. The controversy is over whether morality involves another kind of language and logic than prudence. You cannot assume that it does not without begging the question. My trying to establish that it DOES involve another kind of language and logic is what I'm trying to get started doing.
                  You may be trying, Jim, but you have not made the case that it does. Until you do, I see no reason to add to "morality" that which is not demonstrably necessary. You may call it "question begging" all you wish, but what is evident all around me is what is evident all around me.

                  Let's say, just for a second that morality IS objectively grounded and I am wrong. That would make me like the geocentrists of old and you are the heliocentrist of new attempting to convince me I am wrong. But to do that, you have to make the case and provide the evidence You have utterly failed to do this. Until you do, I will remain a geocentrist because the sun rotating around the earth is quite obvious to anyone observing. Now - there are two possibilities for you have not made the case: a) the evidence exists but you lack the ability to articulate the case adequately, b) the case cannot be articulated because the evidence does not exist."

                  Now I believe that the situation is actually more than you are the "flat-earther" and I the "globalist." You are trying to articulate a position long held to be true, and I am offering you evidence that it is NOT true but rather a vestige of old thinking. You want to offer proof after proof - evidence after evidence that the "old way" of thinking is actually the right way. But you cannot - the evidence is simply not there. So you end up saying things like:

                  "Because it leaves out essential parts unexplained."
                  "It's reductive"
                  "It strikes many as Procrustean."
                  "Morality involves another kind of language and logic than prudence."

                  All nice sentences - but they don't do anything except make a vague assertion backed by nothing. If you are going to make the case that morality must be objective, perhaps you should get on with it.

                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  I've always used the same definition of "subjective" which is in line with the definition used by moral subjectivists: determined by an individual's personal choice or preference. Color assessment is almost never subjective in this sense,and I would argue that moral judgments are not either.
                  So first, I will be more careful to use "individualized" and "subjective" in their proper context. I agree that color perception is individualized and not subjective. Morality is individualized AND subjective. You may think you are arguing about morality being objective - but I have to admit I have not seen a well structured argument in support of that claim yet. I've seen a lot of vague assertions (see above), I've seen several variations on "it can't be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective (which is not an actual argument)," and we've been round and round on language vs. communication, prescriptive as related to subjective, normative vs. descriptive, and a few other topics. I have yet to see a well structured argument for objective morality.

                  ETA: I just caught the exchanges between you, Adrift, and Seer concerning my use of language and posting style. I'm not sure how it all got going, but there are a number of "themes" that have emerged from posters who engage with me on this forum. Most of them are simply untrue and have only emerged here, on this forum. However, as Trump has taught us over the last several years, all you have to do is keep pounding on an untruth and it becomes a widely accepted truth. Seer's observation, for example, is a blatant attempt to take an observation I have made about his tendency to think in terms of black/white (i.e., binary thinking) when he is actually in a context with a lot of "shades of gray" and simply turn it back on me.

                  I'd invite you to judge me on my own merits, and not submit to the chant of the mob. That being said - requesting is all I can do. I leave the rest to you.
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-24-2019, 08:57 AM.
                  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 Post
                    What error? That you have to argue in a circle (or beg the question) to support your moral claims (what you find moral or not)?

                    What? You are the one who said the term moral sanity was useless. Which makes sense since there is no objective way to measure it in your world. Heck in relativism a good Nazi could be morally sane.

                    That is false Carp, besides our discussion about natural/supernatural show me where I did that. I actually tend to use accepted definitions.
                    I've read your response. There's nothing here that merits further discussion. I'll leave the last word to you.
                    Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-24-2019, 08:57 AM.
                    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 Post


                      Which makes sense since there is no objective way to measure it in your world.

                      More to the point, there is no objective way to measure it in your world other than measuring it against the religious delusion of an immaterial god
                      Last edited by Tassman; 08-24-2019, 10:25 PM.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        That is not the point Tass, I did not say that science wasn't useful, but it is based on unprovable assumptions, a few of which I mentioned.
                        The “assumptions” may be unproven but the technology arising from them is not. Science is based upon multiply tested observations and hypotheses which have shown themselves to be accurate to the extent that the modern world depends on it to function.

                        And I'm not sure what kind of evidence you would require for a God akin to the Christian God. What kind evidence would you consider compelling?
                        More than deluded claims of divine revelation, which is all that you’ve got.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          The “assumptions” may be unproven...
                          Thank you, we are done...
                          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
                            Your use language appears to equate "language" with "communication," essentially conflating the two and resulting in some of your odd statements. Just like a "hammer" is not "pounding," but is rather the tool used to perform the act of pounding, language is not communication. It is the tool by which we can communicate. You are attributing to language things that belong to communication.
                            I thought from the context that it would be clear when "language" was meant as "language use". But when I realized that you had ot have things extremely explicitly spelled out for you, then I began writing "language use" and "language users." It's called 'personification.'


                            Your statement was, "I'm communicating to you in terms of a sentence that is potentially true, and thus potentially false." In that sentence, "in terms of" is an odd construct, IMO. "I'm communicating to you using (or by way of) a sentence that is potentially true, and thus potentially false." "In terms of" is a phrase that means "with regard to the particular aspect or subject specified." So the sentences "I don't think you can justify acquiring that printer in terms of price" and "I don't think you can justify acquiring that printer in terms of labor" make sense. In other words, "in terms of" using references a metric used to assess something. Synonyms include "with regards to" or "regarding." You don't "communicate in terms of a sentence;" you communicate "using" or "by way of" a sentence.
                            Okay, "using" or "by way of a sentence."



                            I have one kidney? I tend to prefer to put my left sock on first? I have no idea what you're asking here. I'm almost 61 and working to retire within the next few months?
                            Forget it.



                            And we disagree here. You are (again) ascribing a norm to "language" that belongs to "communication."
                            See above. Not communication. Language use. Communication includes pheromone secretion, etc .



                            I have no idea who you think abandoned this concept. The definitions of language I find are:

                            "the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way."
                            "the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community"
                            "a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings"
                            "a system of conventional spoken, manual, or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves."

                            All of these definitions, and all of the others I found and did not include align with what I have been saying: language is a means/tool/manner by which we communicate. There is no "norm for truth" implied by any of these definitions, and it is not intrinsic to "language" per se. It IS intrinsic to human communication that, when we communicate, we do so truthfully. Society is based on trust, and truth is an important building block of trust. But that is about communication and community, not language per se.
                            You're probably not going to find it through online dictionary definitions of the word. I can post some links, if you'd like. It's the idea that human language use and acquisition is an intrinsic part of the human evolutionary endowment, n ow a widely accepted idea, rather than a mere tool. And there's the notion that language, rather than being a passive tool, actively shapes the conceptual landscapes through which humans have developed and move. Studies indicate profound differences between the literate and non-literate brain. It's not like a person has an idea of what to say pre-linguistically then chooses the words to express it, but that she is almost "always already" immersed in and shaped by language use.

                            I don't mind in the least. I would hope that a discussion in which our only means of communication is the written word, we would tend to be somewhat literal in our use of language. So I take your observation as a compliment. In my experience, many (most?) disagreements are rooted in a misunderstanding of concepts and terms, not in actual disagreement of principles.
                            Clarity is one thing. Literal-mindedness is another, and usually an impediment to communication. Language use does not function at the literal level very well, IMO. It depends upon unspoken shared assumptions, background assumptions, context, capabilities that can never be made fully explicit or discursive.

                            I'll answer the rest later.
                            Last edited by Jim B.; 08-25-2019, 08:28 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

                              If the "good" cannot exist without the experiencer and assessor, how can it be said to be "intrinsic?" And if two people can experience/assess the same thing and arrive at different assessments (i.e., one assesses as good and the other as "not good," how can this assessment be intrinsic to the thing because assessed?
                              I could have expressed that more clearly. I would say that all intrinsic goods are experiences. The goodness is intrinsic to the experience. Pleasure is an experience and I would say that the experience is intrinsically good, even though it may lead to or be associated with bad or neutral things, and even though different people may find that different things give them pleasure/displeasure.



                              You might want to look into the works of Bekoff and Pierce, to name just a couple involved in this research. We have systematically been finding that many of the attributes commonly associated only with humans are not so singularly associated. Instead of seeing "only present in humans" we are beginning to realize that most of these attributes are "most developed" in humans, but begin to manifest in other species to varying degrees depending on their level of sentience. This human-centered arrogance that we have so long been prone to is systematically being challenged as we find advanced communication, tool making, and even moral behavior in other species. I think you're being a bit too black and white here.
                              I know about the research, and I appreciate that many of the attributes formerly thought to be unique to humans have been found to exist in other species. That is why this matter turns fundamentally on a philosophical question: what is morality? Should we modify the concept of morality so that it fits the criteria of the behavior of other species? To question that impulse and to suggest that morality fulfill the conditions that humans attribute to it, such as 'principles,' 'deliberation,' 'critique,' 'quandary,' and the like is what it all will hinge on.



                              Agreed - I wrote both of those things. At no point does that mean moral principles are subjective BECAUSE legal principles are subjective. As I noted, the point was, both of these types of principles deal with human behavior and are normative in nature. Legal principles have these characteristics and are clearly subjective with no one making any serious argument that "they can't be subjective because then they couldn't be normative. But that is exactly the argument being made for moral principles. So why is the argument being made in one domain and not in the other?
                              The idea is that legal principles ought ideally to be grounded or legitimized in moral principles. If moral realism is right, then legal principles are grounded in what is real but one step further removed from the real than moral principles. Obviously, there have been corrupt political regimes where the relation between legal principles and what is real is tenuous at best, just as there have been morally corrupt 'societies' like the Mafia where the relation between their moral principles and the objectively real is tenuous, if not contrary.

                              Why do you think the argument is made in one domain and not in the other?




                              ETA: It dawns on me that I may have finally parsed this sentence. Is it possible that "universality is normative" is your way of saying, "we are all trying to universalize our moral norms?" In other words, we all think our moral norms OUGHT to be universally agreed upon? If this is indeed what you mean, then I completely agree. My moral norms are subjective to me, and I think they should be the universal norm. Indeed, I will work hard to convince others that their moral position should align with mine. They will do the same. We do not do that because we think there is some "objectively true moral principle" to which we should all align. We do that because what we value is most protected/enhanced/nurtured if a) we all commonly value it, and b) we all derive the same moral principles to protect/enhance/nurture what we value. There is no conflict here: we are assessing not only ourselves, but all actions of all sentient beings through the eyes of our moral framework. Of COURSE we will want everyone to agree with us.
                              Here's where things get interesting, because I think you are actually more of a moral realist than you may realize. You have a moral framework that you say you want to universalize, but I submit that you don't want to universalize it due to the (trivial) reason that it is 'yours.' Of course it is yours but only insofar as it is occurring to/in your mind. I suggest that you want to universalize it because you believe it is the "best" framework available, "bestness" being definable in several possible different ways, but none meaning "because it happens to occur to me in particular." It shouldn't matter to you from where you got your framework, from a friend, your parents, a book, overheard it on the bus, etc. What would matter is that you would think it "best" in some way. Of course, you have to assess it "best", just as we all do, but we are assessing it in the light of criteria that are not 'ours' except for the fact that they are occurring in our minds. We assess them in the of an "ideal consensus" that is free from bias, optimally informed, optimally rational, etc. We don't assess them subjectively as our autobiographical selves.

                              If you're a true subjectivist, how can there be moral universals anyway? YOu say you would be fighting to establish moral universals, but as a subjectivist, that seems to be a contradiction in terms. A true subjectivist would have to reject the very notion of moral universals. They would be oxymoronic, as you say.






                              So, let's get concrete here instead of sticking with all of these vague assertions. Identify one specific thing that a subjective notion of morality "leaves unexplained."
                              The things Iisted. The tendency to universalize our moral maxims, as you just illustrated above. the possibility for moral dialogue is very limited under subjectivism. Also the autonomy of individuals is difficult to justify as a universal categorical maxim under subjectivism.



                              Look at these two sentences, Jim:

                              1) I'm not offering the analogy as evidence that I am right.
                              2) I am offering the analogy as part of my argument.

                              Now please explain to me how something that is "part of your argument" is not "evidence that I am right?"
                              Because an analogy that is free-standing as evidence that the speaker is right is different than an analogy that is part of a broader argument. An analogy that is free-standing that is intended as evidence on its own is just an assertion. It can be a support for a broader argument.



                              You may be trying, Jim, but you have not made the case that it does. Until you do, I see no reason to add to "morality" that which is not demonstrably necessary. You may call it "question begging" all you wish, but what is evident all around me is what is evident all around me.

                              Let's say, just for a second that morality IS objectively grounded and I am wrong. That would make me like the geocentrists of old and you are the heliocentrist of new attempting to convince me I am wrong. But to do that, you have to make the case and provide the evidence You have utterly failed to do this. Until you do, I will remain a geocentrist because the sun rotating around the earth is quite obvious to anyone observing. Now - there are two possibilities for you have not made the case: a) the evidence exists but you lack the ability to articulate the case adequately, b) the case cannot be articulated because the evidence does not exist."
                              A third and fourth possibility exist.1) I haven't made the full case yet. And 2)you are possibly, with all due respect a) not following all of what I'm saying, as evidenced by the amount of effort it took to get you to see the meanings of the words 'normative' and 'subjective', ie 15 posts, give or take, and b) you are quite invested in your moral theory and have heavily framed metaethics accordingly. (I plead guilty to the same.) Arguing about metaethics is not like arguing about empirical matters, although even empirical matters can lead to extremely intransigent positions that are all but immune to disproof and argument.

                              Now I believe that the situation is actually more than you are the "flat-earther" and I the "globalist." You are trying to articulate a position long held to be true, and I am offering you evidence that it is NOT true but rather a vestige of old thinking. You want to offer proof after proof - evidence after evidence that the "old way" of thinking is actually the right way. But you cannot - the evidence is simply not there. So you end up saying things like:

                              "Because it leaves out essential parts unexplained."
                              "It's reductive"
                              "It strikes many as Procrustean."
                              "Morality involves another kind of language and logic than prudence."

                              All nice sentences - but they don't do anything except make a vague assertion backed by nothing. If you are going to make the case that morality must be objective, perhaps you should get on with it.
                              How about establishing that you're contradicting yourself, as above? BTW, what is "new" or "old" is irrelevant to the discussion. And FWIW, As I've mentioned before, but you evidently missed, your theory is probably older than mine.


                              So first, I will be more careful to use "individualized" and "subjective" in their proper context. I agree that color perception is individualized and not subjective. Morality is individualized AND subjective. You may think you are arguing about morality being objective - but I have to admit I have not seen a well structured argument in support of that claim yet. I've seen a lot of vague assertions (see above), I've seen several variations on "it can't be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective (which is not an actual argument)," and we've been round and round on language vs. communication, prescriptive as related to subjective, normative vs. descriptive, and a few other topics. I have yet to see a well structured argument for objective morality.

                              ETA: I just caught the exchanges between you, Adrift, and Seer concerning my use of language and posting style. I'm not sure how it all got going, but there are a number of "themes" that have emerged from posters who engage with me on this forum. Most of them are simply untrue and have only emerged here, on this forum. However, as Trump has taught us over the last several years, all you have to do is keep pounding on an untruth and it becomes a widely accepted truth. Seer's observation, for example, is a blatant attempt to take an observation I have made about his tendency to think in terms of black/white (i.e., binary thinking) when he is actually in a context with a lot of "shades of gray" and simply turn it back on me.

                              I'd invite you to judge me on my own merits, and not submit to the chant of the mob. That being said - requesting is all I can do. I leave the rest to you.
                              I don't do that. I ask you to do the same and don't lump me in with the 'flat earthers,' and yourself with the 'globalists,' because it's much more nuanced than that, as I hope you know. And I hope to be making more of my actual arguments soon.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Thank you, we are done...
                                Well you are certainly “done”. You promote an “objective” moral system grounded in the “divine revelation” of a deity the existence of which is unsupported by any substantive evidence.

                                Re science, scientific theories are never deemed “proved” in the sense that they establish once and for ever the truth of a theory. But they are accurate and our modern, highly technological world with its vast accumulation of verifiable knowledge is testament to this fact.

                                In short, science has the means to test and verify its facts, whereas religious concepts don’t.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X