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 Jim B. View Post
    First of all, it's not me calling it first and second order desires, but Frankfurt.
    This I know, but if you are quoting Frankfurt, it seems to me safe to presume you've adopted/accepted this approach, right? So you have (apparently) accepted Frankfurt's model as true and made it your own. When I said "what you call," I was not making a reference to how the idea originated, but to what you yourself posted.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    I was using his schema as a rough analogy, even though I don't really buy into his version of compatibilism. What you're missing in Frankfurt is that he's talking about internal constraints on the will and about how freedom of the will can be formulated within a compatibilist framework. He's talking about what separates humans from other species regarding their desires, which is reflective self-evaluation. The wanton would lack this ability so and so would be different from the willing addict who would still retain it except regarding their addiction.
    So let me get this straight. You were citing a framework you don't adhere to or agree with so as to make an analogy to refute a position you disagree with? And this approach makes sense to you?
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      I have no idea what this refers to.



      They would fair quite well so long as the majority of us actually do see "honesty" as a moral good, which is pretty much the case. Society as a whole would very likely collapse if the majority of us did not see honesty as a good, which is pretty much why so many of us DO see it as a moral good.



      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.



      The same way it works in a non-relative moral framework: the discussion can be had between people who accept honesty as a moral good, and is largely pointless between those who do not, or who do but regularly lie anyway.



      Since I never said anything remotely like this, I have no response.



      See above. And I am certainly aware that you do not see the problem. I'm not sure there is anything I can say that will help you with that. I've tried every way I know how to articulate it. Nothing seems to get through, based on your regular inability to accurately reflect back even the simple statements I have made. There is something about the objectivist meta-ethic that makes seeing outside of it incredibly difficult. I remember encountering that when I began my own journey out of that worldview.
      Carp, you agree that we can not have a rational debate if the laws of logic are not universal, yet you believe we can have a morally rational debate where there are no universal moral truths. The point is where we have legal or moral disputes somethings must be taken for granted - like honestly being a necessary moral good. If not, nothing can follow. You can not assume that honestly is a relative good, even in principle. If you do a moral or legal argument based on dishonesty is just as credible and logically plausible as one based on honesty. It is back to you liking steak, and me pizza. Mere preference with no rational way out.
      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
        As previously noted - "seeing red" is mind-dependent and individualized - but it is NOT subjective. And it is rooted in the objectively real wavelength of electromagnetic energy.
        I agree, but if you read what I actually wrote, I wrote that "Red, PHENOMENALLY...." It was a point of clarification. You wrote:

        Red is another objectively real thing that observers experience if they have the right optical equipment to do so.
        "Red" can be understood in two ways.



        It also covers my decision to take that property that doesn't belong to me, or to injure that person, or to tell that lie, or to do the opposite of all those things.
        Yes, it covers it as a necessary but not sufficient condition as I've noted repeatedly. "Thought" and "Intentional activity" also 'cover' morality quite well.



        Your survival is indeed a moral consideration. I assume you have a moral prohibition against suicide...because it acts against your survival. You may even have moral ideas about self-care. If you have moral positions that could work against your own survival, then your survival is not what you value/cherish most: something else is. And when confronted by a conflict between protecting your survival and protecting this other thing (i.e., another person's life, perhaps), then you have a valuing/cherishing sequence that puts the survival of those others above your own. Most people would call you "selfless."
        If I have a moral prohibition against suicide, it's not because of my desire for my own survival, because clearly if I ever desired to end my life, my desire for my continued survival would no longer be an issue. The prohibition then would have to be about something other than my desire for survival. The sacredness of life, some sort of divine duty to one's life, or a duty or responsibility to others, a responsibility to one's future self, to the communal fabric, or some sort of Kantian imperative, etc, etc. Self care I would consider prudence, as would most cases of health and taking care to survive. These concerns often bleed over into moral concerns when they affect others as well as myself, ie prudence combines with morality such as in taking care when I drive or taking care of my health so as not to be a burden on others.

        The basic rules of a chess game, Jim, are very simple. The basic components of DNA are quite simple and number only 4. Things with a simple core can lead to complex realities.
        But what independent, non-circular reasons do you have to think that the core is so simple?



        See above.
        Ibid



        Why do you think I am not looking at the content? Indeed, one cannot separate my valuing/cherishing from WHAT I am valuing/cherishing. And the thing I value/cherish is not the moral principle, it is the reason I form the moral principle. I value/cherish all human life. The moral principles that result include "random killing is a moral wrong" and "sharing what I have with those who are more in need than I is a moral good."
        Because you are saying:
        I value X.
        Therefore, X is morally good BECAUSE I value it.

        It is procedural, not substantive.

        I am saying:
        X is morally good.
        Therefore, I value it.

        The procedure follows the substance.

        (The above is in very simplified form for illustrative purposes only.)



        People who value/cherish differently are likely to form differing moral principles. If we value/cherish similarly, and we use the same means for deriving moral principles from what we value/cherish, then we are more likely to arrive at the same moral principles.
        But morality, then, by your own working assumptions cannot apply to your theory, as already noted multiple times, because morality, topic neutrally, must accommodate disagreement and fallibility.



        Close - but I don't think I have redefined any terms. If you think I have, I'd be curious to know which terms have been redefined. And the strength of what we value/cherish doesn't "cause" something to be a moral value, anymore than the increase in electromagnetic frequency "causes" a radiated signal to become an X-ray or Gamma rays. There is an electromagnetic spectrum that ranges from 0 Hz to (presumably) a near infinity of Hertz, and we have arbitrarily named certain ranges because the frequencies in that range are used differently or have a different effect. Likewise, we have a range of valuing/cherishing, and that forms the basis for how we make decisions about all of our actions. As we move from least valued/cherished to most valued/cherished, the "oomph" increases and, at some arbitrary point individually selected, we begin to used the term "moral" for those action choices.
        As already noted, this simplistic OOMPH scale doesn't work. Morality and moral deliberation isn't a simple mechanical device, as much as you'd like it to be.



        I know this because it is my internal experience. I know this because the conversations I have with others reveals this process going on within them. I know this because no one has ever been able to make a rationale case for morality being based in objectively true principles. I know this because no one has ever been able to take a single moral principle, and demonstrate how it sources to only objectively true facts. There is always an appeal to what the individual values/cherishes.
        I mean this with all due respect, but you "know" this because you are in the grip of a theory. As I've noted many times, no item of knowledge sources to only objectively true facts. We are subjective, embodied beings who encounter reality through the medium of our subjective minds/senses. Every thought that I think happens in the medium of a subjective occurrence in my brain, nervous system and mind. It does not follow from this that the object or content of every thought that I think must also be subjective in nature. You're confusing the medium with the object of thought. If I think about my friend Jill, that thought occurs to me in a subjective medium of images, desires, projections, memories, etc. But the OBJECT is that person over there, Jill! She's not in my head, but in her house, and I'm really thinking about her. I'm not thinking about my subjective impressions about her, because that would involve me in an infinite recursion.

        As far as the moral principle, I referred to honesty. It cannot be sourced to "objectively true premises alone" which is an impossible requirement even of science and mathematics, let alone of ethics. But as I've noted, and Seer has noted, honesty is a necessary pre-condition for the functioning of dialogue, language, communication, community, integrity, culture. This necessity is not a matter of individual choice or preference any more than the color red is, even if both honesty and redness are emergent properties.



        Again, what terms do you think I have redefined?
        Morality as the sorting of actions into ought and ought not.



        It is not possible to value/cherish without being aware of the content of what is valued/cherished, so I don't understand this objection of yours. Are you saying that the meta-ethical framework I'm outlining is not content-specific? I'm not sure why you would think it would need to be. The framework does not dictate the content - it describes the dynamics of the system. The individual determines the content by determining what they most value/cherish.
        Exactly. My values are a medium for apprehending and holding onto what is good and true, and for forming the basis for what I have good reasons to do. They are a lens onto that reality. They are not the reality itself. When I deliberate, I'm trying to discover what's really out there independent of what I value. What I value may coincide with what's out there; I hope so, if I've formed my character well, but the true object is what's true and good. My values are a only a conduit leading me to that reality through good defensible reasons. The rest is biographical trivia. This is not question-begging. It is my experience. You've gone on at great length about your experience.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          Carp, you agree that we can not have a rational debate if the laws of logic are not universal,
          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.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          yet you believe we can have a morally rational debate where there are no universal moral truths.
          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.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          The point is where we have legal or moral disputes somethings must be taken for granted - like honestly being a necessary moral good. If not, nothing can follow. You can not assume that honestly is a relative good, even in principle. If you do a moral or legal argument based on dishonesty is just as credible and logically plausible as one based on honesty. It is back to you liking steak, and me pizza. Mere preference with no rational way out.
          No. We have to take for granted that 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.
          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


          • We have so many tangents going, I am going to focus my responses on issues germane to the actual discussion at hand and leave the rest aside.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            I agree, but if you read what I actually wrote, I wrote that "Red, PHENOMENALLY...." It was a point of clarification. You wrote:

            "Red" can be understood in two ways.

            Yes, it covers it as a necessary but not sufficient condition as I've noted repeatedly. "Thought" and "Intentional activity" also 'cover' morality quite well.

            If I have a moral prohibition against suicide, it's not because of my desire for my own survival, because clearly if I ever desired to end my life, my desire for my continued survival would no longer be an issue. The prohibition then would have to be about something other than my desire for survival. The sacredness of life, some sort of divine duty to one's life, or a duty or responsibility to others, a responsibility to one's future self, to the communal fabric, or some sort of Kantian imperative, etc, etc. Self care I would consider prudence, as would most cases of health and taking care to survive. These concerns often bleed over into moral concerns when they affect others as well as myself, ie prudence combines with morality such as in taking care when I drive or taking care of my health so as not to be a burden on others.

            But what independent, non-circular reasons do you have to think that the core is so simple?
            - Personal experience
            - My observation of how others articulate and engage their moral principles
            - The fundamental nature of sentience/sapience
            - The inconsistencies and inadequacies of proposing morality as rooted in an objective reality.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Ibid

            Because you are saying:
            I value X.
            Therefore, X is morally good BECAUSE I value it.
            No. Here-in lies your error. I have never said that what I value is moral. It is actions that are moral or immoral. Which actions I see as moral or immoral is rooted in the various things that I value/cherish. The things I value/cherish are not the thing that is moral.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            It is procedural, not substantive.

            I am saying:
            X is morally good.
            Therefore, I value it.

            The procedure follows the substance.

            (The above is in very simplified form for illustrative purposes only.)
            But you have no basis for naming a thing to be "morally good." At least, not one that you have articulated. And I don't think you will be able to do so without having to resort to subjectively valued "other things," but you are welcome to try. I am still waiting for that to happen...from either you OR Seer.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            But morality, then, by your own working assumptions cannot apply to your theory, as already noted multiple times, because morality, topic neutrally, must accommodate disagreement and fallibility.
            We've been around this horn. First, I have never actually challenged this claim - but I do so now. Why must morality necessarily accommodate disagreement and fallibility? Second, I have already shown that disagreement exists even in the subjective moral world. Fallibility also exists, but it is not the same as in the objective moral world. You've largely ignored those responses, as if they were never offered. You are free to do that, but it doesn't do much to rebut them.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            As already noted, this simplistic OOMPH scale doesn't work. Morality and moral deliberation isn't a simple mechanical device, as much as you'd like it to be.
            Yes- you've noted and claimed it multiple times. You just haven't shown it with compelling argumentation.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            I mean this with all due respect, but you "know" this because you are in the grip of a theory. As I've noted many times, no item of knowledge sources to only objectively true facts. We are subjective, embodied beings who encounter reality through the medium of our subjective minds/senses. Every thought that I think happens in the medium of a subjective occurrence in my brain, nervous system and mind. It does not follow from this that the object or content of every thought that I think must also be subjective in nature. You're confusing the medium with the object of thought. If I think about my friend Jill, that thought occurs to me in a subjective medium of images, desires, projections, memories, etc. But the OBJECT is that person over there, Jill! She's not in my head, but in her house, and I'm really thinking about her. I'm not thinking about my subjective impressions about her, because that would involve me in an infinite recursion.
            Reread what you wrote, because you have once again conflated individual/mind-dependent with subjective. It is the heart of your error in this claim.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            As far as the moral principle, I referred to honesty. It cannot be sourced to "objectively true premises alone" which is an impossible requirement even of science and mathematics, let alone of ethics. But as I've noted, and Seer has noted, honesty is a necessary pre-condition for the functioning of dialogue, language, communication, community, integrity, culture. This necessity is not a matter of individual choice or preference any more than the color red is, even if both honesty and redness are emergent properties.
            There is no debate here. It is a fact that honesty/trust is a necessary requirement for social/relational interaction. So if I value social/relational interaction, I will see "honesty" as a moral good because of that fact. If I do not value social/relational interaction, I may not see honesty as a moral good. If I value/cherish something above social/relational interaction, I will likely not see honesty as a moral good if it threatens this other thing that I value. I probably will see it as a moral good for the things I value/cherish less, or places where it does not threaten what I value more.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Morality as the sorting of actions into ought and ought not.
            You think that morality is NOT about sorting actions into "ought" and "ought not?" Every definition on morality I find is some variation on, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." How is that not "ought" (good behavior) and "ought not" (bad behavior)? If it is not about this, what exactly do YOU think morality is about?

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Exactly. My values are a medium for apprehending and holding onto what is good and true, and for forming the basis for what I have good reasons to do. They are a lens onto that reality. They are not the reality itself. When I deliberate, I'm trying to discover what's really out there independent of what I value. What I value may coincide with what's out there; I hope so, if I've formed my character well, but the true object is what's true and good. My values are a only a conduit leading me to that reality through good defensible reasons. The rest is biographical trivia. This is not question-begging. It is my experience. You've gone on at great length about your experience.
            The emphasized line is the core of our disagreement, AFAICT. You seem to think what is "true and good" is out there waiting to be discovered. But you have not been able to make the case for this. First of all, I have no idea what "true" is doing in this context. Indeed, it is redundant and renders the statement (with respect to "true") a tautology. If you remove "good" you are left with, "the true object is what is true," which says nothing. What is true is merely any statement that aligns with the reality it represents. Truth can be subjective or objective. As for what is good, you have imbued "good" with some kind of objective reality - as if it is a property of a thing. As I have now noted many times, good cannot be articulated without also articulating "to whom" and "according to what metric." The combination of these two renders "good" a subjective assessment made by an individual. Nothing is intrinsically good. It is good to someone/something with reference to some specific attribute. If you think otherwise, then identify one thing that is "good" without any recourse to "to whom" and "as measured by what?"
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-27-2019, 03:00 PM.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

              Experience. That includes internal experiences, family, religion, society, community, friends, school, and all of the other ways that we are influenced by our context. Basically the same things that tend to influence ANY of our preferences and opinions.
              That is true, but you're looking only at the epistemic side of the equation. I've been asking you to consider the ontological side. If I ask you why you're dedicating your life to a political cause, you can answer me that it's because of the way you've been brought up or you can answer me about the reasons involved and why you think they are jusitified. And the justification for those reasons, BTW, would be logically independent of your valuing those reasons. The fact that you value those reasons would be irrelevant to what you say.



              This is the quintessential chicken/egg question. Do you value/cherish something more because you have evaluated it as somehow better? Or do you see something as better because you value/cherish it more? hen I look internally, I find that I cannot answer this question. The two are intrinsically interlocked.
              Duly noted. To some extent. For me, the true and good, as difficult as they are to discern, for the most part drive the process.



              This is a point we have already determined we disagree on. What is "good" is seen as "good" by us because of its relationship to the things we value. Good is not intrinsically in a thing, but is a subjective assessment by an individual. We see "healthy eating" as a "good" because it is a significant component of maintaining our health and our life. Healthy eating is a good only so long as we value that health and that life. The person on a hunger strike for a cause they value more than life will cease to see "healthy eating" as a good - it will be an ill with respect to what they are trying to achieve. Good is always relative/subjective to a context.
              I agree with you for the most part except for certain experiences,such as suffering, ie mental anguish, or joy. They are intrinsically good or bad. But for the most part, i agree that evaluative terms are context-dependent. "Good" may include as part of its functional meaning "the flourishing of sentient beings."

              "True" is similar. True is the relationship between a statement/claim and the reality it represents. A statement/claim is true if it aligns with the reality it represents, and false if it does not. "The sky is blue" is true if the sky is blue, and false if it is not. This is true for all of our statements.
              I agree, but that relationship of "truth" is true irrespectively.


              No - that is not what I am saying. But we can solve this fairly simply. I agree with you that our moralizing is to determine what is the best thing to do. My argument has been that the process of "determining best" sources to the impact of the considered action (or intent of the actor) on what I value/cherish. You think it is not. So, how do you determine how one action is "better" than another without referencing something you value/cherish?
              Why would that matter? I can't think of my friend Jill other than through the medium of subjective thoughts in my head, but that doesn't mean I can't have as the object of my thought an objective referent, my friend Jill.



              That didn't help.
              I can't be responsible for what you may or may not find helpful.



              He has language, Jim, because he developed it in the context of society/community. Your claim was that honesty was required for a human being to be functional. We have many examples of feral humans who demonstrate that we adopt the characteristics of the community in which we arise. And we appear to have different definitions of "human." A feral human is still human - they simply have not been influenced by human societies.
              Yeah, I thought we were talking about morality and persons, ie moral agents, people who would be held morally responsible for their actions. Infants, small children, the mentally defective and feral humans would not be moral agents. I referred to "persons" not "humans." A feral human is still human, agreed.



              I truly don't know anyone who "lies to themselves." I can't think of a single instance where I have done so internally. Frankly, I don't think it is possible. A "lie" is an intentional falsehood. When I tell a lie - I know the truth and intentionally alter the communication to reflect an untruth. Simply saying something that is false does not make me a liar - I have to intend the falsehood. I do not see how it is possible for someone to intend a falsehood directed at themselves since lying requires the individual to know the truth. It's simply impossible. What is possible is for my self-image to be incomplete or to be skewed in some fashion. It is possible for me to be in denial about something, but the person in denial is either denying to others but internally aware of the truth, or they are truly ignorant of the truth internally and externally.
              People are complex. Morality is complex. Sorry, Carp. People can self-compartmentalize.





              Again, you demonstrate that what we hold as moral positions will depend on what we value. The criminal values their organization and recognizes the impact of lies on that organization - so they employ honesty in that context. They do not value the broader society and generally view it as a means to an end (wealth, power, etc.), so their moral proscription does not extend to that community.
              Yes, just like everything I think will 'depend' upon, or begin in the medium of, subjective thoughts and experiences. It doesn't mean everything I think is therefore subjective in nature. You're making a category error.

              But I agree that trust is fundamental to society and relationship - and dishonesty erodes trust. I have said so many times. Every day of our lives we engage in a multitude of exercises in communal trust. That is what makes the modern day erosion of trust so dangerous: when a lie is accepted as readily as the truth, the very foundations of society are under attack and the society will eventually collapse if the situation is not addressed. This is the primary reason I want to see Trump removed from office. He is a threat to the very foundations of our democracy because of the casual ways he employs lying almost continually, and has made lying "acceptable" in our society.
              It's a fundamental truth embedded in human life that isn't of my choosing. It isn't of your choosing, any more than we chose the color green.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                This I know, but if you are quoting Frankfurt, it seems to me safe to presume you've adopted/accepted this approach, right? So you have (apparently) accepted Frankfurt's model as true and made it your own. When I said "what you call," I was not making a reference to how the idea originated, but to what you yourself posted.
                I wasn't quoting Frankfurt but referring to him. I was using his idea as an analogy to different levels of volition.



                So let me get this straight. You were citing a framework you don't adhere to or agree with so as to make an analogy to refute a position you disagree with? And this approach makes sense to you?
                There's that pesky literal-mindedness again! An analogy is meant to apply only along the intended analogical points. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  I can't be responsible for what you may or may not find helpful.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    That is true, but you're looking only at the epistemic side of the equation. I've been asking you to consider the ontological side. If I ask you why you're dedicating your life to a political cause, you can answer me that it's because of the way you've been brought up or you can answer me about the reasons involved and why you think they are jusitified. And the justification for those reasons, BTW, would be logically independent of your valuing those reasons. The fact that you value those reasons would be irrelevant to what you say.
                    Jim, you seem to think that pointing to the sources of influence is somehow the only answer. All that list does is identify the things that influence me (i.e., their sources) - not the ways in which I was influenced. If you ask me why I devote so much of my time to the "Black Lives Matter" group, I can tell you my emotional motivation (I have two black sons), as well as why/how I align with their objectives. All of these will logically trace to my general view of the importance of life, liberty, dignity, and happiness - the core things I value.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Duly noted. To some extent. For me, the true and good, as difficult as they are to discern, for the most part drive the process.
                    As previous noted, I have no idea what "true" is doing in this sentence, and "good" is subjectively determined, rendering the entire exercise subjective.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    I agree with you for the most part except for certain experiences,such as suffering, ie mental anguish, or joy. They are intrinsically good or bad. But for the most part, i agree that evaluative terms are context-dependent. "Good" may include as part of its functional meaning "the flourishing of sentient beings."
                    I think, if you give it some thought, you will also find that mental anguish and suffering and joy are also context dependent.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    I agree, but that relationship of "truth" is true irrespectively.
                    I have no idea what that sentence means.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Why would that matter? I can't think of my friend Jill other than through the medium of subjective thoughts in my head, but that doesn't mean I can't have as the object of my thought an objective referent, my friend Jill.
                    It matters because you are conflating the object of thought with an assessment about that object. The discussion was about how X is somehow "better." You then noted that you can think about "X" as an object. I agree. But that is not thinking of X as better - it's just thinking of X. So my question matters and should be answered.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    I can't be responsible for what you may or may not find helpful.
                    Absolutely true. My statement was not intended to confer responsibility - but simply to note that whatever message you were trying to convey was not received. If that makes no difference to you, so be it.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Yeah, I thought we were talking about morality and persons, ie moral agents, people who would be held morally responsible for their actions. Infants, small children, the mentally defective and feral humans would not be moral agents. I referred to "persons" not "humans." A feral human is still human, agreed.
                    I take responsibility for sloppy reading. You did indeed say "person."

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    People are complex. Morality is complex. Sorry, Carp. People can self-compartmentalize.
                    Yes, they can - but I do not think they can "lie to themselves." The very nature of the concept of a "lie" precludes it.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Yes, just like everything I think will 'depend' upon, or begin in the medium of, subjective thoughts and experiences. It doesn't mean everything I think is therefore subjective in nature. You're making a category error.
                    And you are taking a statement made in one context and expand it with a superlative, while again (or perhaps because you are) conflating subjective with individual/mind-dependent. Everything you think will depend upon the medium of your individual/mind-dependent experiences. Everything you think does not depend on your subjective thoughts and I never claimed as much. There is no category error.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    It's a fundamental truth embedded in human life that isn't of my choosing. It isn't of your choosing, any more than we chose the color green.
                    That trust is fundamental to community/relationship is indeed an objectively true reality. That does not make "honesty is good" an objectively true moral principle. It makes "honesty is good" a subjectively true moral principle to the person who values/cherishes community/relationship (which is the vast majority of us). We are framing a subjective moral position in the context of an objectively true reality.

                    The color green is also an objectively true phenomenon. That does not make my liking the color green above any other color an objective phenomenon. It is a subjective, comparative assessment of an objective reality.
                    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 Jim B. View Post
                      I wasn't quoting Frankfurt but referring to him. I was using his idea as an analogy to different levels of volition.

                      There's that pesky literal-mindedness again! An analogy is meant to apply only along the intended analogical points. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing!
                      So I repeat, you used a model you do not adhere to in an attempt to create an analogy against something you do not agree with? And you find this useful?
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        So I repeat, you used a model you do not adhere to in an attempt to create an analogy against something you do not agree with? And you find this useful?
                        I did not "use a model." I referred to multi-level volition and referred to Frankfurt as the one who happened to originate that idea, which is a commonly held idea in action theory by many philosophers who would agree with Frankfurt only up to the point of accepting a multi-tiered model and no further. I agree with Hitler about the need for an efficient highway system but not much further. This exchange is, sadly, all too typical of you. Contentious misreading, and you find this useful?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Jim, you seem to think that pointing to the sources of influence is somehow the only answer. All that list does is identify the things that influence me (i.e., their sources) - not the ways in which I was influenced. If you ask me why I devote so much of my time to the "Black Lives Matter" group, I can tell you my emotional motivation (I have two black sons), as well as why/how I align with their objectives. All of these will logically trace to my general view of the importance of life, liberty, dignity, and happiness - the core things I value.
                          Yes, but those things are not valuable because you individually value them. You value them because they are valuable, not in an absolute Platonic sense, but in a sense that transcends individual valuation and valuers. I am not the one who confers value on life. I discover and acknowledge the value that is already there in life, in freedom, etc. Moral truths do not have to be like mathematical or logical truths on the one hand or subjective truths on the other. Those alternatives are too extreme to map onto how morality is and has evolved. There are other possibilities.



                          As previous noted, I have no idea what "true" is doing in this sentence, and "good" is subjectively determined, rendering the entire exercise subjective.
                          Again, that's too broad and simple to fit onto the variegated moral landscape. You're trying to fit a 2-d map onto a 3-d topographical reality. There is a necessarily subjective element in my search for what is true but there is also a formal relationship of correspondence and "fit" that requires some abstraction to be able to apply differently depending on context. Same with the good and bestness. Otherwise we couldn't use the same words ("true" and "good") in such different contexts and still communicate.



                          I think, if you give it some thought, you will also find that mental anguish and suffering and joy are also context dependent.
                          This is a perfect example of the problems we've been having. This is a point that I would think would, or should, be fairly simple, and yet you manage to litigate it over a number of posts.

                          Take pain, as in physical anguish. Agonizing, unbearable pain. It is context-dependent in that what causes you such pain may be different from what causes me such pain, and also what I would characterize as unbearable physical anguish would be different from what you would characterize as such. That's ALL beside the point, as usual. My point is that physical anguish is bad in itself. It is intrinsically a bad thing. The experience is just plain bad. It's not bad because it leads to or causes other bad things (although it may) but because the experience of the anguish is just plain awful. Same with joy as the converse.



                          I have no idea what that sentence means.
                          What I referred to above. Truth as a formal correspondence relation holds irrespective of context, unless you're a coherentist.



                          It matters because you are conflating the object of thought with an assessment about that object. The discussion was about how X is somehow "better." You then noted that you can think about "X" as an object. I agree. But that is not thinking of X as better - it's just thinking of X. So my question matters and should be answered.
                          I'm not trying to conflate anything. I'm just trying to stick to the basics, which was your original question from several posts ago: How can an argument with subjective premises alone lead to an objective conclusion? My answer is that the premises are subjective only in their medium but not in their object, and that all thought and language operate in this dual functioning. As far as how X is better than Y, I'll have to go back to the original post, which I honestly don't feel like doing right now. And I really don't think it's worth it.

                          Yes, they can - but I do not think they can "lie to themselves." The very nature of the concept of a "lie" precludes it.
                          Sure they can. How does the concept of a lie preclude it? Are you a psychologist? The human psyche is surprisingly complex, more than "the nature of our concepts" might lead us to believe.



                          And you are taking a statement made in one context and expand it with a superlative, while again (or perhaps because you are) conflating subjective with individual/mind-dependent. Everything you think will depend upon the medium of your individual/mind-dependent experiences. Everything you think does not depend on your subjective thoughts and I never claimed as much. There is no category error.
                          However you want to define "subjective." Let's say "depending on propositional attitudes" or "depending on choice or preference." When I think of Jill, these definitions still apply to my subjective thoughts and would not apply to the object of my thoughts, the objective person.



                          That trust is fundamental to community/relationship is indeed an objectively true reality. That does not make "honesty is good" an objectively true moral principle. It makes "honesty is good" a subjectively true moral principle to the person who values/cherishes community/relationship (which is the vast majority of us). We are framing a subjective moral position in the context of an objectively true reality.
                          I cannot even know what I value without being honest with others and with myself. I cannot be a "self" without emerging from a context of trust and interdependence. Individual persons are not antecedently individuated. They would be less than animals. Even non-human animals live in communities of trust and cooperation.

                          The color green is also an objectively true phenomenon. That does not make my liking the color green above any other color an objective phenomenon. It is a subjective, comparative assessment of an objective reality.
                          Yes, I do not choose green. I do not choose the ability to choose or to be a self. Those require emerging from a social fabric of trust and honesty.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Yeah...I think you're quibbling a bit. Your statement was "there is no god." That is a definitive statement and requires a leap of faith. If you want to amend the statement with a qualification in light of the discussion, by all means do so. We all misspeak at one time or another. But the original statement was accurately responded to.
                            It’s not “quibbling”. Not even science claims absolute certainty in its multiply tested theories of the laws and constants of the universe. E.g. ‘relativity’. It seems by all tests and fulfilled predictions that it is true, but ALL scientific theories are hypothetically falsifiable. And so, with gods. I see no good reason to believe they exist but hypothetically it’s possible they do. Improbable but possible.
                            “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
                              I did not "use a model." I referred to multi-level volition and referred to Frankfurt as the one who happened to originate that idea, which is a commonly held idea in action theory by many philosophers who would agree with Frankfurt only up to the point of accepting a multi-tiered model and no further. I agree with Hitler about the need for an efficient highway system but not much further. This exchange is, sadly, all too typical of you. Contentious misreading, and you find this useful?
                              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.
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-28-2019, 07:08 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 Tassman View Post
                                It’s not “quibbling”. Not even science claims absolute certainty in its multiply tested theories of the laws and constants of the universe. E.g. ‘relativity’. It seems by all tests and fulfilled predictions that it is true, but ALL scientific theories are hypothetically falsifiable. And so, with gods. I see no good reason to believe they exist but hypothetically it’s possible they do. Improbable but possible.
                                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.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by 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