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 seer View Post
    Then you agree with Jim: According to subjectivism, there is no fact of the matter in any moral issue, ergo no possibility for disagreement about that issue, only about subjective reactions to the issue
    There is no objectively true fact in any moral issue - but that is more "green is not red" argumentation. And the absence of any objectively true moral statements does not preclude agreement. It simply means agreement is not guaranteed. But then again, no so-called objective moral framework has ever been able to guaranty agreement either, so I don't know why that would be an objection.
    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
      There is no objectively true fact in any moral issue - but that is more "green is not red" argumentation. And the absence of any objectively true moral statements does not preclude agreement. It simply means agreement is not guaranteed. But then again, no so-called objective moral framework has ever been able to guaranty agreement either, so I don't know why that would be an objection.
      I think the point is that would make morality trivial. We would be arguing with each other over personal preferences, with no basis, not even logic, for judging between the two.
      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
        By the criteria of your present/current moral framework.
        But that makes no sense. I'm judging everyone's framework and my own by my own framework, including my own shifting framework
        ? I'd have to be able to step back and assess my shifting framework in terms of something other than itself in order to avoid an infinite recursion.

        They are the basis for our (subjective) moral assessments.
        See above.



        We typically find our moral framework needs to be adjusted if a) the things we value that underlie our moral frameworks shift, or b) we discover that we have made an error in reasoning from what we value to a moral position, accepting as "moral" something that is actually a threat to what we value.
        But why should you be held accountable to an error in reasoning? It sounds like you're suggesting a norm of reason for moral agents. You sure there's not a closet deontologist lurking in there somewhere?



        If we have truly decided that our moral framework needs to adjust, then our moral framework will shift. That is not the same as not following a moral framework we have not determined needs to shift, but that we simply have failed to live up to.
        You're suggesting that there are criteria for when a moral framework needs to change. Why can't I just make up my own? Like because it's Tuesday and my right foot itches? If I can't, then it's not really up to 'me,' is it?



        Yes, we have been over this - and I think I've been clear that your argument here reduces to "it can't be subjective because then it's not objective." I told you this will happen fairly regularly. Yes - there is no objective basis against which both you and I can assess our subjective moral frameworks. I assess you against mine, and you assess me against yours. If our underlying valuing is misaligned, then the resolution to the moral disagreement can only be achieved by aligning that valuing - and there is no assurance that this will happen. If we our underlying valuing is already aligned, then we should be able to argue from that valuing to the moral conclusions and find the point of disconnect. It is more likely we will align under those circumstances - but there is no guarantee that we will. There is no objective basis for determining "who is right."

        We know this. That is intrinsic to the definition of "subjective." So you are basically arguing "it can't be subjective because then it's not objective." Seer does not get this, but perhaps you will. This is not an argument. It is a restatement of the definitions of subjective and objective. What you are doing (to return to colors) is to say "that car can't be green because then it's not red." We already know that a green car is not red. This is not telling us anything. You are trying to claim that the car HAS to be green, but the only argument you have is "but if it's green, it's not red!" See the problem?
        You think I'm arguing circularly, that "it can't be subjective because then it can't be objective." But actually I'm arguing that "It can't be subjective because then these OTHER objectionable consequences follow from it being subjective." When I argue thus, you just answer that I'm arguing in a circle: "It can't be subjective because..." You can't see that I've broken the circle and introduced new content. You either don't understand the objectionable consequences or don't want to respond to them.

        As far as the "moral disagreement" objection", you actually make my point without realizing it. About a given moral issue, our 'values' may align or misalign, but in either case, what you don't seem to understand is that we are not discussing the moral issue itself but our own subjective reaction to it. If our values align that's just a happy accident but that alignment is not about the issue but about our reactions to that issue. If they misalign, we are disagreeing over our clashing subjectivities, our clashing tastes about human actions.



        Again - repeating this claim over and over again does not make it true. Successful communication and social cohesion carry with them an implicit commitment to truth. Language is just language. It's like saying "a hammer carries with it an implicit commitment to hit things." No - it doesn't. Like language, the hammer is just a tool. "Using a hammer to fasten two things with a nail" carries with it the implicit commitment to hit something. You are conflating language and communication.
        No. See above in previous post. Ants have communication and social cohesion. They have no concept called "truth."



        Yes - because the scientist's purpose is to discover the truth about reality, and then communicate that to the rest of the species. Without that commitment to truth, that process of discovery and the successful communication of it cannot happen. Language is simply the tool used to make that communication.
        Science is simply the tool to discover truths about the world. Scientists have, or ought to have, an implicit commitment to said goal. language is merely the tool to communicate truths about the world. language users ought to be committed to said goal.




        I agree that (hopefully) most people would come to those moral conclusions. But we disagree on why. I believe we agree on these moral principles because our shared experience of humanity, history, society, religion, experience, family, etc. result in us having highly aligned valuing. Since morality springs from what we value, there is no surprise that we have highly aligned moral frameworks. But we also have differences and the degree to which we are different can vary from "very little" to "a great deal," and it is from these differences that the disconnects in our moral frameworks arise.
        You're the one making the bolder claim. You're saying "No A is B." I think you have the greater burden, especially since it is in such diametrical opposition to common experience. You need to make a much stronger case. BTW, I'll be presenting more arguments, so I may not be responding as much point by point to your posts, but I'll try.



        Umm...no. "Lying" is essentially the intentional misalignment of statement/claim from reality. "Truth" is the intentional alignment of statement/claim to reality. Neither definition depends on the other, or presupposes the other, and the two definitions are simply the opposite of one another (alignment/misalignment). If something can be aligned, then it can also be misaligned, and vice versa. What you are saying is the equivalent of "left is inconceivable apart from right, but whereas the opposite is not." I don't see ANY basis for accepting that claim.
        No, you're not following. "Lying" is a truth-dependent concept. It's not like "left" and "right". It's an asymmetric relationship. "Left" is as "right-dependent" as "right" is "left-dependent." There's no world in which you could imagine one without the other. A world in which there is only lying with no concept or standard of truth is not imaginable. But a world of truth without lying IS imaginable.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          What makes you think the individual has a 'cohesive moral framework'? You're maybe confusing descriptive ethics with normative ethics. At the descriptive level, there are probably very few 'cohesive moral frameworks,' either at the individual or the societal level but a hodgepodge of various influences.
          My use of "cohesive" in my statement, "No society has a cohesive moral framework," was meant to indicate that no society achieves 100% alignment on a moral framework between the individual members of that society. I said noting about individual moral frameworks being cohesive. However, since you brought it up, for the individual, the degree of cohesion within their moral framework will depend on the degree of cohesion between what they value and the degree to which they have correctly reasoned from valuing to moral principles. I would think cohesion for an individual would best be measured by the absence of direct conflict between elements of the overall moral framework.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          "Truth" is a property of some sentences, like beliefs, assertions, etc. Sentences are a part of a 'human language.' A 'human language' is only one type of 'communication.' Ants, bees, and bacteria communicate but they do not communicate in sentences; thus they do not communicate via the 'truth.'
          And here is where I disagree with you. "Truth" is not a property of a sentence. It is a measure of the alignment between a sentence and the reality it purports to represent. A sentence is "true" if it aligns with the objective reality it represents, and untrue if it does not. I agree that language is only one way in which human communicate, which is why I think you err to conflate language and communication. I can deceive you without using language.

          As for "communicate via the truth," that is a very odd sentence. I communicate via language. I communicate via gestures. I communicate via facial expressions and so-called "body language." I don't communicate via truth." What I communicate, by any of those means, is either true or untrue, depending on its alignment with reality.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Would you say that there are any things that are good in themselves and not merely good for what other good things they can give you?
          No. The statement "good in itself" is meaningless, IMO. "Good" is an assessment made by an assessor using a selected metric. Without that assessor and the defined metric, the notion of "good" does not exist.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          I would say that 'pleasure', all things being equal, is a good-in-itself. This doesn't mean that pleasure is always or necessarily an instrumentally good thing, but an intrinsically good thing. Taking heroin may give me pleasure (an intrinsic good) but leads to bad stuff (an instrumental evil).
          Again, you seem to contradict yourself within the same paragraph. If a thing is good-in-itself, then how can a "context" change that goodness? The thing's goodness is, according to you, self-contained. It should be immune to "context." Yet you acknowledge that it is not always a good thing in the next sentence. Do you not see the problem here...?

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          No. I don't think so. We don't see morality in high-level sentience. We see morality we rationality and language. We see 'pre-moral sentiments' in other higher species like dolphins and bonobos.
          We see moral frameworks emerge in high-level sentience. We also see advanced language and communication emerge in high-level sentience. That correlation does not equate to any form of causation. If you think so, you have yet to make that case.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          There you go again. More question-begging with no evidence at all to support it.
          So which part lacks evidence. Does not morality deal with human action and categorize ought versus ought not? Does not legality also deal with human action and categorize ought versus ought not? Are legal systems not subjective to the society/group/culture that derive them? Do you know of anyone who suggests that the absence of an "objectively true" legal framework renders legal frameworks useless because there is no way to resolve discrepancies? You like to toss out "question begging," but I see nothing in that statement that assumes its own conclusion.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          "Interestingly" as you note, the two phenomena differ crucially. How to explain this and other crucial differences? If it were just a residual effect of religion, as I suspect you would posit, why wouldn't religion have left a similar impact on law? Hmmm....'tis a poser.
          So how do legal codes differ from moral ones in a way that you consider "crucial" and requiring an explanation?

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Are you familiar with the philosophy of math and logic?
          The brain cells are dusty - but that was my undergraduate degree.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          From what tiny bit I know about it, it's not at all clear that they are "believed to be universal, absolute, etc..."
          There are some who suggest the basic laws of reason and mathematics are NOT universal or absolute. IMO, they all tend to collapse on themselves. For one thing, they all use those exact principles to try to make their case, which is a bit of a bad start. As I noted to Seer, we cannot PROVE that the basic laws of reason (or even mathematics) are absolute/universal/objective without becoming caught up in a circular argument, because we have to use the principles to attempt to make that case. We accept them as such prima facie, because we essentially have no alternative that I am aware of. Seer would like to use that fact to exempt any claim he wants to make that he cannot provide a reasonable argument for from the need to have a rational argument. "You are holding them to differing standards, which is special pleading" is his oft repeated cry. The fundamental laws of logic ARE a special case - they are the starting point for all rationality. We can provide a host of evidence for why we find them to be true/universal/absolute, but we can never definitively prove them to be such because they ARE the starting place. No other proposition holds that unique characteristic.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          And that's NOT what I'm claiming moral principles to be anyway, so you're creating a strawman.
          Not so much a strawman, but I have heard this argument so often from Seer (and others) that I may be guilty of assuming it of you as well. If that assumption is incorrect, consider my objection withdrawn with my apologies for the presumption.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          The analogy to math and logic would be that both they and morality would be true irrespective of individual choice or preference.
          Yeah...no. Here's the thing about analogies: you take two things that have similarities to help someone who understands one but not the other to gain that understanding. But in order for the analogy to work, the two things have to have similarities. Mathematical/logical principles have nothing in common with moral principles, except that many want to claim they are all absolute/universal/objective. That's not a very functional analogy.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Not quite sure what you're driving at here.
          I am getting at what I challenged you to do many posts ago. Take ANY moral principle you hold to be true that is not a tautology (i.e., like "murder is wrong") and ask yourself "why?" See if you can explain why it is wrong WITHOUT ending up talking about something that you subjectively value and the threat this action poses to that thing. If you can demonstrate how even ONE moral principle is true on purely objective grounds - I would have no choice but to rethink my meta-ethics.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          No, you're not getting it. The experience of color is 'subjective,' but the assessment of color, as in "that traffic light is red" is fixed by physics and by physiology (several billion years of evolution). Even though the process is happening inside my retina/brain, it's not 'subjective' the way YOU are using that word, ie it is NOT my choice that I am seeing that traffic light as that sensation of 'red.'
          I am getting it, Jim, but I think you might not be. What is fixed by physics is the wavelength of light. The assignment of "red" to a specific range of that spectrum is an arbitrary one made by humans. The set of wavelength we call "red" extend from approximately 635 to 700 nanometers (430-480 THz), a range that includes 50 trillion frequencies, not to mention the fact that these are analog signals, creating an infinity of variation within the range. No two of us can experience any of this at the same time/place for any given object, making the experience of these wavelengths subjective on that front, but it goes beyond that. Your claim that our experience is "fixed by physiology" is simply untrue. Color blindness immediately shows that position to be untrue. So too does any disease that impacts our ability to experience sight. So too does the level of light (i.e., luminosity) within a given situation (i.e., rods detect light, cones detect color - but cannot do so at low luminosity levels. Objects still reflect the light at the specified wavelengths, but we cannot detect them). Furthermore, no two of us has exactly the same retinal pattern, the same exact structure of neurons on our optic nerves, or the same synaptic patterns in our brains. Not only do we have any way to determine whether or not your experience of "red" and mine are the same (qualia), we have no reason to believe that experience of "red" IS the same. You are suggesting that, despite all of that difference between any two individuals, they are having the same experience of red? They are having a subjective experience of an objective reality. ALL of our experiences are subjective experiences of objective reality. You cannot escape it.
          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
            I think the point is that would make morality trivial.
            To you perhaps. To others perhaps. I'm not having that problem.

            And I note that is a subjective assessment on your part!

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            We would be arguing with each other over personal preferences, with no basis, not even logic, for judging between the two.
            Morality IS about preference. So is legality, and no one seems to object to that.

            Not to mention that you are back to arguing "green is not red," which is (once again) not an argument. We already know there is no objective basis for moral alignment when morality is subjective. I have acknowledged that multiple times - and all you can do is continue to assert "this is a bad thing" with no argument other than "subjective stuff has no objective basis."

            When you have an actual argument - let me know.
            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
              Morality IS about preference. So is legality, and no one seems to object to that.

              Not to mention that you are back to arguing "green is not red," which is (once again) not an argument. We already know there is no objective basis for moral alignment when morality is subjective. I have acknowledged that multiple times - and all you can do is continue to assert "this is a bad thing" with no argument other than "subjective stuff has no objective basis."

              When you have an actual argument - let me know.
              Well I'm glad you admit that there is no rational way (i.e. logical) way to judge between moral preferences.
              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
                No Tass, you brought up the deductive argument thing. An argument you can not use to support the scientific method,
                Correct. One cannot use “the deductive argument thing” to support the scientific method” which is why I said you are “confusing scientific methodology with metaphysical argumentation”.

                your view of reality, or universal logical absolutes. Yet you believe all these things without deductive justification, yet you required that of me. A clear double standard
                ‘Apples and oranges’, i.e. you are arguing two things that are fundamentally different and therefore not suited to comparison. Science has an effective empirical methodology to test its hypothesis and premises. Metaphysics does not, its premises are grounded in assumptions or axioms. This is the point I was making.
                “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
                  Well I'm glad you admit that there is no rational way (i.e. logical) way to judge between moral preferences.
                  No - I didn't admit that, despite the many times you have tried to put that language in my mouth. It's an interesting, if somewhat cheap, debating trick that you seem to like to return to.

                  What I HAVE admitted is that there is no objectively true basis for making a judgement between moral preferences. But then we all know what, since what is subjective is not objective - so we're back to more "green is not red" on your part.
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-21-2019, 06:32 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
                    Correct. One cannot use “the deductive argument thing” to support the scientific method” which is why I said you are “confusing scientific methodology with metaphysical argumentation”.
                    No Tass, you brought up the deductive thing as IF it was a deficit on my part because I couldn't prove God to make a deductive case for moral absolutes. But so what? You (we) believe a lot of things that can't be proven, deductively or otherwise.



                    ‘Apples and oranges’, i.e. you are arguing two things that are fundamentally different and therefore not suited to comparison. Science has an effective empirical methodology to test its hypothesis and premises. Metaphysics does not, its premises are grounded in assumptions or axioms. This is the point I was making.

                    And all science is based on assumptions, and has to be. The uniformity of nature, logical absolutes, a physical universe exists that operates independently of our perceptions, the universe operates according to certain laws which are knowable, events have natural causes which can be explained by natural laws, the laws of nature are constant throughout space and time, etc....
                    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
                      No - I didn't admit that, despite the many times you have tried to put that language in my mouth. It's an interesting, if somewhat cheap, debating trick that you seem to like to return to.

                      What I HAVE admitted is that there is no objectively true basis for making a judgement between moral preferences. But then we all know what, since what is subjective is not objective - so we're back to more "green is not red" on your part.
                      Well no Carp, you never demonstrated how logic can or does decide between competing moral views (especially if each opposing view is deductively sound). So why you think this is a debating trick is beyond me.
                      Last edited by seer; 08-21-2019, 06:52 AM.
                      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
                        Well no Carp, you never demonstrated how logic can or does decide between competing moral views (especially if each opposing view is deductively sound).
                        Actually - I have - several times. The fact that you continue to ignore it doesn't change that. The key to your misunderstanding is in your parenthetical and the observation that "may not" and "can not" are not equivalent concepts.

                        You have the same problems in your so-called "objective morality" world, which is why I have repeatedly said all existing moral agents are subjective moralists, even the ones that claim to be objective moralists. It's roughly equivalent to the flat-earthers. You can "believe" all you wish that the earth is flat. You cannot escape the reality that it is round or the consequences for your everyday life. Likewise, you can cling to the belief that morality is rooted in an objective/absolute moral framework all you wish - but you cannot escape the reality that morality is actually subjective, with all of the consequences inherent to that reality.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        So why you think this is a debating trick is beyond me.
                        Because it is a somewhat childish "technique" you return to frequently. I have to assume it is because your goal is to "win" rather than to discuss an issue and arrive at better understanding. The difference between your discussion style and Jim's is pretty evident, and I have to admit that I prefer his approach.
                        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
                          Actually - I have - several times. The fact that you continue to ignore it doesn't change that. The key to your misunderstanding is in your parenthetical and the observation that "may not" and "can not" are not equivalent concepts.
                          That is just false Carp, you were clear that there was no rational way to decide between competing moral views - especially if each opposing view is deductively sound - besides personal preference. Hence separation. If I'm wrong refresh my memory.

                          You have the same problems in your so-called "objective morality" world, which is why I have repeatedly said all existing moral agents are subjective moralists, even the ones that claim to be objective moralists. It's roughly equivalent to the flat-earthers. You can "believe" all you wish that the earth is flat. You cannot escape the reality that it is round or the consequences for your everyday life. Likewise, you can cling to the belief that morality is rooted in an objective/absolute moral framework all you wish - but you cannot escape the reality that morality is actually subjective, with all of the consequences inherent to that reality.
                          I'm not sure what you mean by reality? You agreed in our discussion that moral disagreement does not prove subjectivity. So what are you pointing to? Yet I have agreed that the law of God would be subjective to Him, yet absolute - immutable, not relative, and objective to humankind (not depending on our opinion). And as our moral sense aligns with that law the closer we get to absolute moral truths.


                          Because it is a somewhat childish "technique" you return to frequently. I have to assume it is because your goal is to "win" rather than to discuss an issue and arrive at better understanding. The difference between your discussion style and Jim's is pretty evident, and I have to admit that I prefer his approach.
                          I'm sure Jim is a nicer, more patient fellow than I.
                          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
                            That is just false Carp, you were clear that there was no rational way to decide between competing moral views - especially if each opposing view is deductively sound - besides personal preference. Hence separation. If I'm wrong refresh my memory.
                            Like I said...cheap debate tactic. I'll leave it to you.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            I'm not sure what you mean by reality?
                            What is objectively real. What has actual existence.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            You agreed in our discussion that moral disagreement does not prove subjectivity.
                            I have never claimed disagreement "proves" subjectivity. The claim would be manifestly unsupportable.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            So what are you pointing to?
                            1) The rooting of each an every moral principle I have ever encountered in the subjective valuing of its proponent.
                            2) The subjective nature of valuing
                            3) The inability of so-called moral realists to articulate any argument concerning the need for, or existence of, any objective/absolute/universal moral principles.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Yet I have agreed that the law of God would be subjective to Him, yet absolute - immutable, not relative, and objective to humankind (not depending on our opinion).
                            First - all of this depends on a god you cannot show to actually exist. Second, the "objective" nature of this god's moral principles is no more or less objective to others than mine is. My moral framework is an objective reality to you and yours is to me. Absolute is the only one of these claims that is a differentiator, and only if you can show a) this god exists, and b) this god is unchanging. You cannot do either. So we are left with unsubstantiated assertions.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            And as our moral sense aligns with that law the closer we get to absolute moral truths.
                            The closer we get to aligning our moral framework to that of another sentient being, which you cannot show even exists.

                            Seer, what you are ACTUALLY doing is attempting to aligning your moral framework to your interpretation of the documented framework(s) of a small group of men who lived 1900-3500 years ago. That is why it is a "follow the herd" moral strategy. Ergo, there will never be a rational basis for you and I to resolve moral conflict, because I do not hold the writings of that small group of men in the same esteem as you do and do not base my moral framework on it. So you and I have nothing left but ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            I'm sure Jim is a nicer, more patient fellow than I.
                            I have no idea. I do know that he appears to be more of a debater that looks to uncover ideas and explore concepts rather than a debater that looks to "score points." I'm more interested in the concepts than the cheap debate tricks.
                            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 never claimed disagreement "proves" subjectivity. The claim would be manifestly unsupportable.
                              Good that is what I said.



                              1) The rooting of each an every moral principle I have ever encountered in the subjective valuing of its proponent.
                              2) The subjective nature of valuing
                              This would apply to the color blue, it would depend on subjective valuing/understanding. As it would with just about everything else

                              3) The inability of so-called moral realists to articulate any argument concerning the need for, or existence of, any objective/absolute/universal moral principles.
                              Is there any need for the color blue? But there certainly could be a very great need for people to believe in moral absolutes. Like moral sanity.



                              First - all of this depends on a god you cannot show to actually exist. Second, the "objective" nature of this god's moral principles is no more or less objective to others than mine is. My moral framework is an objective reality to you and yours is to me. Absolute is the only one of these claims that is a differentiator, and only if you can show a) this god exists, and b) this god is unchanging. You cannot do either. So we are left with unsubstantiated assertions.
                              There you go with unsubstantiated assertions! Shall we go though all the things you hold to be true based on unsubstantiated assertions? Talk about cheap and hypocritical debating tricks...


                              Seer, what you are ACTUALLY doing is attempting to aligning your moral framework to your interpretation of the documented framework(s) of a small group of men who lived 1900-3500 years ago. That is why it is a "follow the herd" moral strategy. Ergo, there will never be a rational basis for you and I to resolve moral conflict, because I do not hold the writings of that small group of men in the same esteem as you do and do not base my moral framework on it. So you and I have nothing left but ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.
                              What does age have to do with moral truths? Or who articulated them?
                              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
                                Good that is what I said.

                                This would apply to the color blue, it would depend on subjective valuing/understanding. As it would with just about everything else
                                No. While it is true that the experience of "blue" is a subjective one, it is a subjective experience of an objective reality (or so we assume. This is another of those baselines we cannot hope to logically "prove" and can only provide evidence for the belief). Valuing is the assessment of an objective thing in terms of the benefits it brings to the valuer. Moral principles are subjective in this latter sense.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Is there any need for the color blue?
                                Need? This question is somewhat nonsensical to me and I have no idea how it relates to the discussion at hand.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                But there certainly could be a very great need for people to believe in moral absolutes. Like moral sanity.
                                Apparently not - since I do not believe there are moral absolutes, no one has ever demonstrated the existence of one, and I am not having difficulty with my moral sanity, unless you'd like to simply declare that anyone who does not agree with your so-called "moral realism' is morally insane by definition - which would be begging the question badly.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                There you go with unsubstantiated assertions!
                                Which "assertion" from that paragraph do you consider "unsubstantiated?" They all seem fairly well documented, IMO.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Shall we go though all the things you hold to be true based on unsubstantiated assertions?
                                Feel free to do so if you wish. I doubt you will find too many...unless you're going to fall back on the old standby: "you can't prove the fundamental principles of logic." Note that taking that path also makes every position you hold an "unsubstantiated assertion" as well.

                                ETA: Of course, this somewhat depends on your definition of "unsubstantiated." The term generally means "not supported or proven by evidence." While not all of my views/positions can be logically proven, I do not normally hold a position without evidence.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Talk about cheap and hypocritical debating tricks...
                                The "I'm rubber you're glue" response is about as childish as the rest of these taunts. You really would be better off, Seer, just staying with the arguments at hand. But I'll leave that call to you.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                What does age have to do with moral truths? Or who articulated them?
                                If you do not know the answer to that question, then I have to assume you've missed the point of pretty much every post I've ever made on this topic. Repeating it all doesn't sound like a good use of my time.
                                Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-21-2019, 03:08 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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 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