Atheism And Moral Progress

[One Bad Pig]

The USA a also secular state as per Israel and is no more in a position to legislate against abortion than Israel is to legislate for it.

A valiant attempt to move the goalposts....

[JimL]

Tass, you're talking to yourself! And then you proceed to post the same crap over and over and over.....

No, he's directlly responding to a brick wall, and I'm sure he's well aware of that, but the brick wall is not necessarily his target.

[Cow Poke]

A valiant attempt to move the goalposts....

Valiant?

[mattbballman31]

[carpedm9587]

My response is to harness the imagery of the tree. Even B and S have no "fixed" objective or goal, except to optimize sunlight for the tree. B continues to grow even when an S forms, and S gives rise to other S, and each branch arcs towards the best available sunlight to maximize photosynthesis for the tree. But the specific path any B or S takes is a function of the position of the sun and the paths the other Bs and Ss take. It also depends on the existence of other Ts and their position with relation to this T. That's how a tree grows. That's how evolution works. Essentially, that's how morality works as well. As with evolution, you can only understand "progress" in relation to the context and environment - it is not an "absolute" measure because, like evolution, it does not have a fixed objective (except as a tool to sort the actions of a sentient being, as related to things most valued, into "ought" and "ought not").

[shunyadragon]

The USA a also secular state as per Israel and is no more in a position to legislate against abortion than Israel is to legislate for it.

I do not consider Israel to be a secular state. The secular status of the US government is loosing ground.

[mattbballman31]

My response is to harness the imagery of the tree. Even B and S have no "fixed" objective or goal, except to optimize sunlight for the tree. B continues to grow even when an S forms, and S gives rise to other S, and each branch arcs towards the best available sunlight to maximize photosynthesis for the tree. But the specific path any B or S takes is a function of the position of the sun and the paths the other Bs and Ss take. It also depends on the existence of other Ts and their position with relation to this T. That's how a tree grows. That's how evolution works. Essentially, that's how morality works as well. As with evolution, you can only understand "progress" in relation to the context and environment - it is not an "absolute" measure because, like evolution, it does not have a fixed objective (except as a tool to sort the actions of a sentient being, as related to things most valued, into "ought" and "ought not").

[Tassman]

I do not consider Israel to be a secular state. The secular status of the US government is loosing ground.

I think technically Israel is a secular state as is the USA, but in practise not so much.

[carpedm9587]

Since morality is relative, the other T's are the moral frameworks of other sentient beings.

Of course, things get a bit convoluted when you understand that the moral agent is itself part of the environment being defined. To whit - what the moral agent fundamentally values (e.g., liberty, life, happiness, etc.), and their ability to reason is what will serve as the basis for their moral framework. If Moral Agent A values life, and Moral Agent B does not, their moral frameworks will not align. If Moral Agent C values life, they will see a shift by Moral Agent A to not valuing life as a "retreat" or "regress" rather than progress. They will see a shift by Moral Agent B to valuing life as "progress." From any "objective" assessment, there is no progress or regress - only change.

But we measure changes in other moral frameworks against our own - so we see progress when alignment is increased, and regress when alignment is decreased.

[mattbballman31]

Since morality is relative, the other T's are the moral frameworks of other sentient beings.



Of course, things get a bit convoluted when you understand that the moral agent is itself part of the environment being defined. To whit - what the moral agent fundamentally values (e.g., liberty, life, happiness, etc.), and their ability to reason is what will serve as the basis for their moral framework. If Moral Agent A values life, and Moral Agent B does not, their moral frameworks will not align. If Moral Agent C values life, they will see a shift by Moral Agent A to not valuing life as a "retreat" or "regress" rather than progress. They will see a shift by Moral Agent B to valuing life as "progress." From any "objective" assessment, there is no progress or regress - only change.

But we measure changes in other moral frameworks against our own - so we see progress when alignment is increased, and regress when alignment is decreased.

[carpedm9587]

Except, Matt - you and the other moral absolutists cannot even show the existence of a "moral absolute" or "absolute framework." You can repeatedly claim it exists, and we are all supposed to be measuring ourselves against it, but no one here can actually show what it IS, or show THAT it is. We don't need to add anything to moral relativism/subjectivism. It already works and has worked for hundreds of years. It explains the differences between people's moral positions, and why the moral positions of groups shifts over time.

Occam's Razor - don't add something to an explanation that is not necessary to the explanation.

[mattbballman31]

Except, Matt - you and the other moral absolutists cannot even show the existence of a "moral absolute" or "absolute framework." You can repeatedly claim it exists, and we are all supposed to be measuring ourselves against it, but no one here can actually show what it IS, or show THAT it is. We don't need to add anything to moral relativism/subjectivism. It already works and has worked for hundreds of years. It explains the differences between people's moral positions, and why the moral positions of groups shifts over time.

Occam's Razor - don't add something to an explanation that is not necessary to the explanation.

[carpedm9587]

As best I can tell, proving/disproving the existence of an "absolute moral framework" is somewhat akin to proving/disproving the existence of a god: it cannot be done. Both are more a matter of faith and not subject to any kind of rigorous proof.

Then there is something in your explanation that I have missed, because it does not seem to me that you've accomplished this at all.

And here you are wandering into a level of cryptospeak I just don't spend time on. I use "moral relativism" and "moral subjectivism" more or less interchangeably. Each of us has a moral framework that is rooted in what we value, how we reason, and how that guides us to sort "ought" from "ought not." So morality is subjective to the individual. As a consequence, moral decisions will be relative to the individual. I understand that "moral relativism" is also used to reflect the belief that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect universal or absolute moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Because these circumstances reflect "collective" moral norms, I take that as a given, with one caveat: because Culture X or Historical Period Y operated with Moral Framework Z - that does not make Moral Framework Z binding on me. There is only one moral framework that is binding on me - it is the one through which I view the world and assess all moral actions: my own moral framework.

[mattbballman31]

As best I can tell, proving/disproving the existence of an "absolute moral framework" is somewhat akin to proving/disproving the existence of a god: it cannot be done. Both are more a matter of faith and not subject to any kind of rigorous proof.



Then there is something in your explanation that I have missed, because it does not seem to me that you've accomplished this at all.



And here you are wandering into a level of cryptospeak I just don't spend time on. I use "moral relativism" and "moral subjectivism" more or less interchangeably. Each of us has a moral framework that is rooted in what we value, how we reason, and how that guides us to sort "ought" from "ought not." So morality is subjective to the individual. As a consequence, moral decisions will be relative to the individual. I understand that "moral relativism" is also used to reflect the belief that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect universal or absolute moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Because these circumstances reflect "collective" moral norms, I take that as a given, with one caveat: because Culture X or Historical Period Y operated with Moral Framework Z - that does not make Moral Framework Z binding on me. There is only one moral framework that is binding on me - it is the one through which I view the world and assess all moral actions: my own moral framework.

[carpedm9587]

If that is indeed the case, I would suggest that the car mechanic should be having his conversations with someone else. S/he is likely wasting his/her time with the automotive illiterate.

How kind..

A thesis you have no reason to accept should be rejected. Outside of that, the rest of this paragraph has little/no meaning to me. It might be because I don't understand cars.

Actually, it's not. I find that it is perfectly possible to discuss things without engaging in cryptospeak. Let me tell you a story, if I may.

25 years ago, I set out on an audacious course: to build my own house. It was a ridiculous quest. I had no tools. I had no formal training. I just had a reasonable intellect, a willingness to learn, and a desire to have a particular house at a particular price. So I set out to do so. Each time I encountered something new that I knew nothing (or little) about, I used the same technique: I found someone who had done it before, hired them to do the thing with me - so long as I could participate and learn. And then I did the rest myself. I had never installed a window, so I hired someone to install the first one with me - then I installed the rest. Today, I live in the house I wanted, mostly built by my own hands. In the process, I learned that there were two types of people out there in the land of "construction." There were the people willing to share what they know - so I could be empowered to continue on. And there were the people who buried what they knew in "cryptospeak," making it virtually impossible for me to actually learn anything. The former had value to me. The latter had none. The former could take what they knew, and express it in terms I could understand. The latter lorded their knowledge like a cudgel - doing everything they could to keep me in the dark and maintain their superiority.

I knew little about cars. I have had several mechanics over the course of my life. The ones that last a very short time are the ones that continue to throw cryptospeak at me, lording their superior knowledge over me. The ones that last a long time are the ones willing to "dumb down" what they know so I can learn. Nick is my current car mechanic. He's a gem. Hell take the time to provide me information in language I can understand. Over time, I've gained a lot from his tutelage. A good student recognizes a good teacher.

I am a teacher, Matt. I understand the student who is not at my level of understanding. My area of expertise is telecommunications. I could, if I wanted to, bury my students with my knowledge. But that is not my job. My job is to help them learn. So I take what I know and reframe it in language that is at the level they can understand. I think of it as the equivalent of a Olympic-level swimmer helping a new swimmer to learn. They will never learn if they are ridiculed for not already being Olympic level - or if the teacher constantly insists they need to be at an Olympic level before they are considered worthy of conversation. As I teacher - I meet them where THEY are - I do not expect them to be where I am.

It is not incompatible with moral absolutism, Matt. The problem is that the moral absolutist cannot show that an absolute moral framework actually exists. As I have noted several times - do not add to an explanation an element unnecessary to the explanation. Moral relativism explains how moralism works. It accounts for all of its dynamics. And it does not require me to include an absolute framework I cannot show to actually exist - not to mention cannot show that there is an absolute interpretation thereof. If you're going to make a case for moral absolutism, it seems to me you have to show something fairly basic: how does moral absolutism solve a problem that moral relativism cannot? Then, perhaps, we can get somewhere.

As for the rest - I leave it to you to decide if you wish to remain in the world of cryptospeak. I am actually a ready and willing learner. But I have little patience for the teacher with an ego problem. I will learn from the teacher interested in teaching. I will reject the teacher only interested in fluffing their own ego.