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 carpedm9587 View Post
    Yes. Universal and absolute. This true because reason is rooted in the fundamental laws of logic. They are the sine qua non of rational discourse.

    Yes, we can. We can have a rational debate about both subjective and objective issues. Objective is easier because we are debating an objective reality. Presumably, the truth value of the premises will be the same for everyone. Subjective is more difficult because we cannot logically resolve if the premises do not align (i.e., are not true for everyone discussing/debating). If we agree on the premises, then we should be able to reason to a common conclusion and have a rational discussion. This is logic 101.
    How can rational debate be valid where honestly is not a universal good? How is honesty also not a sine qua non of rational discourse? Look, when we have theses discussions it is assumed that we have a duty to be honest. And this duty is objectively necessarily whether we believe honesty is a moral good or not.


    No. We have to take for grantehat we are dealing with a person for whom honesty is a moral good. Better yet, we should verify that fact if we have any reason to question it. If we are not dealing with someone who sees honesty as a moral good, and is prone to lying, then a logical discussion is pointless. This is true in either the subjective or objective meta-ethical world, whether honesty is relatively good or absolutely good. You are confusing ethics with meta-ethics. Even in an absolute/objective meta-ethics, a person may choose to lie for any number of reasons, making rational discussion pointless. The issue is not the meta-ethical concept of how moral principles are derived - it is the specific moral principle Person X adhere's to.
    That is not the point Carp, you still would have no rational rebuttal for the position that dishonesty is a moral good. You can separate all you like, you still have no credible, or logical, recourse.
    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
      OK - that post I definitely missed. Can you point me to it?
      About honesty. Epistemic norms.



      No - that's NOT what I said. What I said was that rational argumentation to defend refute a given moral position is pointless between people who value/cherish differently - even if both use reason to go from valuing/cherishing to moralizing. That does not make discussion impossible. It means the discussion has to focus on the difference in valuing/cherishing with the intent of influencing a change.
      But then you have no grounds for "influencing a change" through reasons. If the value is reasons-based, and two people value differently, then according to you, there are no grounds for reasoned discussion. The only values that can be influenced are taste-based, like your sushi example.



      I do. Most here value/cherish their god above all else, AFAICT. I do not.
      So then how can you possibly discuss this kind of thing with us? Or subjectivism with a moral realist? You value your ethical theory which differs radically from mine. We have no grounds for rational discussion, according to you, so why are you on here exchanging posts with me, Seer, Adrift, Chrawnus and others?




      Actually, if you recall, you approached me concerning my subjectivism and challenged my views. I have merely been responding to your arguments and telling you what I think of them and how they do or do not stand up to scrutiny. I actually have no expectations of "persuading" anyone, nor is that my objective.
      You mean how they stand up to scrutiny in the light of reasons equally accessible, in principle, to all participants?



      No. Indeed, I have said exactly the opposite (see above).
      But in practice you are doing something different. If you were really to put your theory into practice, you could only influence those of us who value/cherish differently from you by means of example or experience. It seems like the rest would have to be silence.



      There can be disagreement. It can be explored rationally (to a point). I would suggest it can be explored rationally to determine what the valuing disconnect actually is, assuming both people use reason to arrive at their moral positions.
      I'm not sure that's where the disconnect really is. We probably value the same moral things: honesty, love, liberty, etc. The disconnect lies deeper, at the metaphysical level ( and I don't mean theism vs. atheism); of course you can always say we value different metaphysical truths, but that just delays the problem rather than addressing it, because I would say we apprehend different truths.



      If you will note, Jim, our discussion has not been about particular moral positions. It has been about meta-ethics: the nature of morality itself. So I find your comments here a little perplexing.

      It is true that I have engaged others here on specific moral issues. But I learned that I was foolish to do so, pretty much for the reasons you cite and I have noted: if there is a fundamental disconnect in valuing/cherishing, there is little/no basis for a moral discussion until that valuing is more aligned. Since I am fairly sure that I will not be successful in influencing anyone here to value differently (i.e., a little less god, a little more humanity), and I am fairly sure they will not be able to influence me to return to my Christian beliefs, I conclude there is little purpose in discussions about specific moral points in this context. That leaves me with ignore (for moral positions that are relatively trivial and can simply be dismissed), isolate/separate (the medium of this website naturally does this) or contend (which I do in the political forum with my vote, my contributions, and my work with young people).
      But you value subjectivism. Wouldn't that value be subjectively-based? And if so, how can you rationally discuss it with those who value differently?
      Last edited by Jim B.; 09-28-2019, 05:03 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post




        Well, you were doing well until you got to the second half (after the hyphen). We are in agreement with what precedes the hyphen, but not what follows. You are creating a false dichotomy. The opposite of "most human beings see honesty as an objective good" is "most human beings don't see honesty as an objective good," not "honesty is something that can be dispensed at will due to relative preferences." The opposite of the latter is "honesty is an absolute/objective moral norm," as best I can tell.

        In other words, the issue of how many people adhere to a moral norm is separate from the meta-ethics of morality itself.
        You're right that how many people adhere to a moral norm is separate from the meta-ethics of morality itself. What I would add is that honesty is not separate from meta-ethics because honesty is a necessary and implicit element of moral and epistemic norms. You don't have to adhere to morality any more than you have to adhere to rationality, but then you're opting out of the world or reasons and norms entirely. As long as you're willing to accept reasons, you're implicitly accepting the norm of honesty.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          OK, Jim. As I said, I'm not interested in discussions that degenerate into this type of mind-reading and personal characterizations. It doesn't seem you can keep the discussion about the issues and the arguments. I'll leave you to declare the win and have the last word.
          Define and provide examples of "mind-reading' and 'personal characterizations."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Then I submit, Tass, that your statement "there is no god" was a bit too absolute, hence the responses about "leaps of faith." I agree with Chrawnus on this one - anything we hold to be true requires a leap of faith to hold that position. At the end of the day, we cannot even prove we are not an AI simulation or a "brain in a vat." ALL of our beliefs rest on unprovable assumptions that we make every day without really even thinking about them. It takes a leap of faith to accept that the universe I experience through my senses is real and that I am accurately interpreting it. And we know that we are not accurately interpreting it. Or, more accurately, we are interpreting only a fraction of the reality that exists all around us.
            I think you are overstating this to the point of inaccuracy and so is Chrawnus. I very much doubt that Neil Armstrong considered his reliance on the technology that took him to the moon to be a "leap of faith". This terminology is generally limited to beliefs that cannot be verified, such a belief in gods.
            “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
              I think you are overstating this to the point of inaccuracy and so is Chrawnus. I very much doubt that Neil Armstrong considered his reliance on the technology that took him to the moon to be a "leap of faith". This terminology is generally limited to beliefs that cannot be verified, such a belief in gods.
              I don't care one whit what Neil Armstrong himself thought, his reliance on the "technology that took him to the moon" was by all reasonable definitions of the term a "leap of faith".

              Let me amend that. I don't care one whit if you think he considered it to be a "leap of faith" or not.
              Last edited by JonathanL; 09-29-2019, 02:03 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                I don't care one whit what Neil Armstrong himself thought, his reliance on the "technology that took him to the moon" was by all reasonable definitions of the term a "leap of faith".
                Oh well then.

                Let me amend that. I don't care one whit if you think he considered it to be a "leap of faith" or not.
                What you care about is irrelevant in this context. The term is described "an act of believing in or attempting something whose existence or outcome cannot be proved". Oxford. Scientific technology can be tested and verified whereas the existence of gods and spirits etc. cannot be tested and verified. Hence belief in such things constitute a “leap of faith”.
                “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 Jim B. View Post
                  Define and provide examples of "mind-reading' and 'personal characterizations."
                  You've been incredibly restrained throughout the discussion so I wouldn't take it personally. carpe tends to have a bit of a martyr complex whenever particular habits or behaviors of his are exposed over the course of a dialogue. He labels it "mind-reading" when all it is is plain observation. He claims that this is an issue particular to this forum (regardless of who he is debating) and that he's never run into the issue on other social platforms.

                  It's of course a defensive technique, and it's often his way of bowing out of conversations rather than conceding a point. It's similar to his debate technique of feigning offence when someone uses an emoticon, all the while throwing in his own subtle barbs or occasional emoticon, usually under the rubric that he 'rarely does this, but in this particular cases...'

                  Anyhow, whether or not he actually gave you the last word (you can never tell with him), you didn't waste your time, as at least I got a lot out of it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    You've been incredibly restrained throughout the discussion so I wouldn't take it personally. carpe tends to have a bit of a martyr complex whenever particular habits or behaviors of his are exposed over the course of a dialogue. He labels it "mind-reading" when all it is is plain observation. He claims that this is an issue particular to this forum (regardless of who he is debating) and that he's never run into the issue on other social platforms.

                    It's of course a defensive technique, and it's often his way of bowing out of conversations rather than conceding a point. It's similar to his debate technique of feigning offence when someone uses an emoticon, all the while throwing in his own subtle barbs or occasional emoticon, usually under the rubric that he 'rarely does this, but in this particular cases...'

                    Anyhow, whether or not he actually gave you the last word (you can never tell with him), you didn't waste your time, as at least I got a lot out of it.
                    Thanks, Adrift. I've tried not to take it personally. I notice he's the left the "last word" with seer quite a few times, so who knows? Doesn't really matter. Glad you got something out of it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Thanks, Adrift. I've tried not to take it personally. I notice he's the left the "last word" with seer quite a few times, so who knows? Doesn't really matter. Glad you got something out of it.
                      FWIW, this lurker also found what you had to say very interesting Jim B.

                      Comment


                      • Thanks, Celebrian.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Celebrian View Post
                          FWIW, this lurker also found what you had to say very interesting Jim B.
                          Me too...
                          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 seer View Post
                            It is hard to see what an atheist would mean by moral progress. Would she mean that what agrees with her ethical point of view is progress? Or that more of us agree with each other? I suppose the atheist could look at increasing peace and prosperity as moral progress, but again that would still revert to that which agrees with her ethical point of view (that increasing peace and prosperity is actually a moral good). So it seems that without a universal moral standard to aim at, or move towards, that there is no moral progress, merely moral change.
                            Some believe in moral progress because they're non-natural or natural moral realists, but that's not to say that those theories crumble on other grounds.
                            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 seer View Post
                              It is hard to see what an atheist would mean by moral progress. Would she mean that what agrees with her ethical point of view is progress? Or that more of us agree with each other? I suppose the atheist could look at increasing peace and prosperity as moral progress, but again that would still revert to that which agrees with her ethical point of view (that increasing peace and prosperity is actually a moral good). So it seems that without a universal moral standard to aim at, or move towards, that there is no moral progress, merely moral change.
                              Firstly, I think it's important to note that some atheists hold that there is an objective morality (note that I do not subscribe to this view), and so to them moral progress would be progress along/toward moral ideals held by that morality.

                              However, for most atheists (who are, in my experience, moral relativists), yes what agrees with their moral point of view is progress. For example, I believe that allowing people of the same sex to marry is moral progress; there are, of course, others who view it as moral regress.
                              America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                                Firstly, I think it's important to note that some atheists hold that there is an objective morality (note that I do not subscribe to this view), and so to them moral progress would be progress along/toward moral ideals held by that morality.
                                I have never seen a good argument for moral realism

                                However, for most atheists (who are, in my experience, moral relativists), yes what agrees with their moral point of view is progress. For example, I believe that allowing people of the same sex to marry is moral progress; there are, of course, others who view it as moral regress.
                                Then moral progress is relative and not real progress - just change.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                510 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                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