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
    So now I'm a troll. We are not off to a good start.
    Many of your posts bear the hallmarks of trolling. It's why I largely disconnected from the discussions. They proved to be pointless. If you can maintain a civil discourse without those elements, I'll give it a shot. If not...

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    In any case I have been trying to get Charles to give a straight answer too. There was another moral realist here a few years back, a real crabby fellow - I could not make sense of his argument either. Maybe Jim can enlighten us.
    I have never met a so-called "moral realist" who has been able to make this case. If they make arguments, the arguments are riddled with unsupported assumptions, loop back to "it cannot be subjective because then it would not be objective," define their way to a conclusion, or end up demonstrating a basis rooted in subjective assessments (demonstrating subjectivism rather than objectivism). More often than not, they simply avoid the issue altogether.

    I'll be interested to see what case is put forward. I have to admit to some degree of skepticism, based on my experiences over the past 3 decades+
    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
      Except the Euthyphro's Dilemma would not account for an immutable moral character. But God is the subject, His moral law, is well, His. I don't see a way around it.
      I think asserting that God's moral nature is subjective to his own immutable, and perfect self is extraneous. He just is "the good". No need to assert that he wills it. You can get rid of the whole "subjective" bit, and have a more robust argument against both subjective morality and the Euthyphro Dilemma.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        I'll be interested to see what case is put forward. I have to admit to some degree of skepticism, based on my experiences over the past 3 decades+
        Well to be honest Carp, I never found your arguments against universal moral truths to be compelling.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          I think asserting that God's moral nature is subjective to his own immutable, and perfect self is extraneous. He just is "the good". No need to assert that he wills it. You can get rid of the whole "subjective" bit, and have a more robust argument against both subjective morality and the Euthyphro Dilemma.
          See to me something is objective if it exists independent of a mind or minds. Objective: having reality independent of the mind.

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
          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
            See to me something is objective if it exists independent of a mind or minds. Objective: having reality independent of the mind.

            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
            Well, that's just the point. The good is neither independent of (objective), nor dependent on (subjective) God's will. God simply is the good. Goodness is rooted in his very nature. Speaking of objective or subjective morality with God in mind is (in my opinion) misses the point, and puts the theist in the awkward position of giving the Euthyphro Dilemma teeth. I just don't see any need to do that. As William Lane Craig puts it,
            "I’ve argued that objective moral values are rooted in God's nature, not in His will, and that that nature expresses itself toward us in the form of divine commandments, which constitute our moral duties. God may have subjective feelings, but these are not the basis of moral value or obligation."

            https://www.reasonablefaith.org/ques...gument-for-god

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              Well, that's just the point. The good is neither independent of (objective), nor dependent on (subjective) God's will. God simply is the good. Goodness is rooted in his very nature. Speaking of objective or subjective morality with God in mind is (in my opinion) misses the point, and puts the theist in the awkward position of giving the Euthyphro Dilemma teeth. I just don't see any need to do that. As William Lane Craig puts it,
              "I’ve argued that objective moral values are rooted in God's nature, not in His will, and that that nature expresses itself toward us in the form of divine commandments, which constitute our moral duties. God may have subjective feelings, but these are not the basis of moral value or obligation."

              https://www.reasonablefaith.org/ques...gument-for-god
              This is what I don't get, His nature is His mind, He thinks morally by nature. What He wills or what He commands proceeds from His moral mind. But hey, I'm not adverse to dropping an unnecessary step, though I'm not sure you are correct.
              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
                So this is my bad. I have been using the term "sentience" when I should more properly be using the term "sapience." And I disagree with your example. A plant does not "value" sublight. It benefits from sunlight, but it lacks the sapience to make a value judgement about light. Categorization is a by-product of sapience, and moral assessments are nothing more than another form of categorization: dividing actions into "ought" and "ought not."
                "Sapience" is a very vague term and not of much use in this context. "Rationality" and "language competence" might be more like it, in line with the following leading definitions of "morality" I found:

                - A moral discourse, statement, or lesson.
                - A doctrine or system of moral conduct.
                - Particular moral principles or rules of conduct
                -Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
                - A particular system of values and principles of conduct.
                -Principles concerning right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

                Since "principle" came up so often, I thought I'd look that one up too:
                -A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as a foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

                Value-
                -the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
                -relative worth, utility, or importance
                -the degree of importance of some thing of action

                So it seems that according to the leading definitions, "morality" is linked to language competence, and "value" could indeed apply to plants and to most other species.

                "Ought" and "ought not" are categories that we humans make internally. We know we are doing it because it is happening inside of us and it is tokened one to another by our words and actions. We cannot see inside the heads of other species to know with anything close to that degree of confidence what's going on in there. All we have are patterns of behavior. To project "oughts" and "ought not's" onto other species seems like a very unscientific unwarranted form of anthropomorphism.



                I disagree...and yes...we do.
                What I meant was we don't choose love in general. I never chose to love my mother when I was an infant or chose to bond with other humans or to seek love and approval when I was a toddler. Unless there's something wrong with me, it's just part of being human, sociality isn't a choice any more than being verbal.



                So the slave born into slavery is unable to choose freedom and seek to escape? This makes no sense to me.
                Yes, of course. That's circumstantial freedom. What I meant was actual freedom. I have to already be actually free in order to choose freedom. It's the paradox of freedom that Sartre referred to. man is condemned to be free. We can attempt to deny this freedom through bad faith but even this move is a perverted expression of our freedom. Only suicide truly disburdens us of this freedom.



                Of course I choose "love." Love is a choice I make every single day. But it is not necessarily freedom or love that I am choosing when I am making a moral assessment - it is the actions that promote/nurture/defend/sustain freedom or love.
                Yes, that's what I said. I think that the core needs are not chosen but are part of who and what we are, to connect with others, to be free, to express and create, to provide the basic necessities, but how we fulfill these needs is up to us.



                Jim...if my life is a constant array of pain...I may cease to value life. If I am a fearful person, or have been incarcerated for most of my life, I may prefer the protection of incarceration to the experience of freedom. Of COURSE we choose these things.
                Yes, it may become a choice to go on biologically surviving, but barring extraordinary circumstances, maintaining one's biological survival isn't a choice any more than ensuring that your tires don't blow out is a choice. And I was talking about actual, metaphysical freedom.


                I don't think you can make the case that "killing an innocent person is wrong" is an objective moral truth, but you are welcome to try. Why is "killing an innocent person" objectively wrong?
                I can only try. It's interesting that you just assume that the burden is on me to make the case to you. I have made the case that subjectivism is highly implausible via several arguments, none of which you've answered satisfactorily and some which you haven't even apparently understood. I have also made the case for objectivism which you have not apparently followed. And yet you say that you have no burden to provide any argument yourself. As a matter of fact, you have made the argument for me in places, but when I point that out, you act like you don't understand what I am referring to. You can't put the pieces together , or you act obtuse when it's convenient for you to do so.



                The freedom to choose is a necessary component of morality in any model, Jim. It is not unique the either the subjective or objective worldview. If you cannot make moral choices and act on them, then you are not a moral agent.
                Exactly. You make my point. You are the one who is claiming that freedom is a "value" that is subjectively chosen. I am pointing out that this is illogical, that one already has to be free in order to choose freedom or anything else. Ergo, freedom is not a subjective value. It is thrust upon us.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I think, after all the verbiage, it comes down to this. I would too like to see Jim make the argument. I tried to get Charles to focus on something like this, no luck.
                  Who do you think has the burden in this case, seer, me or Carp? Who has offered actual arguments, seven or eight now, I think, I've lost count, in support if his position, and who has offered zero?

                  Please make the non-circular argument for the existence of real physical objects independent of my sense experience.
                  Please make the non-circular for the existence of other minds.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    So you're saying that you believe god is the intentional cause of the suffering and death of the Bahama people?
                    God is in control, the winds are at his command (Ps. 148:8). But God bears pain and suffering, we see this in the cross.


                    "Surely he took up our pain
                    and bore our suffering..." (Isa. 53:4)

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Who do you think has the burden in this case, seer, me or Carp? Who has offered actual arguments, seven or eight now, I think, I've lost count, in support if his position, and who has offered zero?
                      Right, but I'm looking for a clear and concise argument for objective morality.

                      Please make the non-circular argument for the existence of real physical objects independent of my sense experience.
                      Please make the non-circular for the existence of other minds.
                      You can't. So now what?
                      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
                        When the alcoholic who is regularly attending AA meetings brings home alcohol and hides it, then sneaks off to take drinks and uses mints to disguise his breath, he is lying. We can lie with a nod, a headshake, or any of a variety of body gestures that are not linguistic in nature. You keep wanting to force this square peg into a round hole - and I keep showing you how it doesn't fit. I'm not sure what else there is to say.
                        The primary meanings of lie and truth are linguistic. Even the gestures you refer to are arguably linguistic, the way a nod can mean "yes" or "go ahead". Can cats or dogs "lie"? They can deceive, but I'm not sure they can actually lie.


                        It would not make language impossible, Jim. Language would continue to be and the words would continue to mean what they mean. Communication, however, would be impossible - and with it would go society. Language would be unaltered and undamaged. Communication and trust would fail and, with it, society. That is basically what I have been saying from the outset.
                        Communication covers things like ants and bacteria, moss, mushrooms, pheromones and neurotransmitters, things with no intentionality. I don't think you can have lying or even deceit without intentionality. We could still communicate with each other through body language, clothing, hair, our physical condition and other non-verbal cues if every word we uttered were a lie. As for the rest, I can only refer you to the literature.



                        You just pointed out the flaw in Kant's Categorical Imperative, and now you are using it to defend your position? That's not a very strong position. I would argue it also begs the question - because it begins by assuming an objective basis for morality - which you have not shown.
                        Yeah, that's the way philosophy and most other fields work. You take the part of a writer's oeuvre that is successful and jettison the part that isn't. that happens every few hundred years. And I wasn't arguing there to convince a subjectivist. I was explicating the Kantian position. You got question-begging on the brain!



                        It is indeed a crude example - and I don't see how it makes your case. Even if I accept most of what you posted, there is no logical conflict in there being no art, or possibility of art. Likewise, if everyone lies, language is not impinged, as noted above. Communication/trust/society are compromised. If I value these things, then I will see lying as an immoral act. If I do not value these things, or value something even more, then I will have no moral principle against lying - or I will have a weaker one. This is a principle Trump lives by: he values "the win" and "money" above society and relationship and community. Ergo, in his moral framework, lying is perfectly permissible if it gets you money or helps you win in a conflict situation.
                        You totally missed the point. I wasn't arguing that there'd be any logical conflict in there being no art. The universe of reference was [Art] being an analogy for [Language], each negating the ground of its own possibility. Let's just drop it pal, whadya say?





                        Yeah - I don't think "above" makes your case. It is perfectly consistent with moral subjectivity - so does not establish that morality must be (or is) objective.
                        How so? The idea of an "Ideal Desirer" is central to my argument. If you can accept that, maybe there's the possibility of a rapprochement? (Sp)?



                        Why does it need to?
                        Because you were talking about how important trust within a community/society was.



                        What if it is?
                        Then what you said doesn't apply.



                        Yes. All societies/communities are built on trust. I'm sure that most of the Nazis had a moral prohibition against lying for that reason.
                        If I'm an objectivist, I will feel conflicted about lying and other moral evils even within a Nazi society. If you as a subjectivist could sacrifice one innocent life against that person's will to ensure the defeat of the Nazi Regime, would you personally do it?



                        Again - it is all rooted in what we value/cherish. If the society/community we are a member of is toxic (to us) and we seek to subvert it, then we will not value that society and our moral prohibition against lying will weaken or disappear, at least in that context.
                        Why do you put so much emphasis on what something is "rooted in"? You demand demonstration of a moral principle "with no reference to its roots in what we subjectively value/cherish." I think this is the crux of our disagreement. You seem to assume that for something to be "objective," that the demonstration of its truth has to be free of any trace of the means or history of its discovery. Might not this be the Genetic Fallacy, to confuse the context of justification with the context of discovery? Also you'd have to define "trace" more clearly, or at least less circularly!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Right, but I'm looking for a clear and concise argument for objective morality.
                          Why does that burden fall on me alone? Can you make a clear and concise argument for your position, or Carp for his? (I happen to know he can't.)



                          You can't. So now what?
                          So the point is we're justified in believing those things regardless. We don't need clear and concise knock-down deductive arguments to have jusitifiable beliefs.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            This is what I don't get, His nature is His mind, He thinks morally by nature. What He wills or what He commands proceeds from His moral mind. But hey, I'm not adverse to dropping an unnecessary step, though I'm not sure you are correct.
                            Is his nature his mind, or is he a mind with a nature? God is eternal. That's part of his nature, but his eternality does not proceed from his mind. God is immutable, but his immutability does not proceed from his mind. He doesn't will himself to be immutable, he simply is immutable. Incorporeal, omnipresent, omniscient. These, like moral goodness, do not proceed from his mind, they are essential elements of his being.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Jim, if there is no ultimate justice, or universal reckoning if you will, why would it be rational to deny your selfish desires or wishes?
                              Because we have evolved as social animals that need to live in community in order to survive. It is in our own self-interest to subordinate our selfish desires to the best interests of society as a whole.
                              “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
                                And what does that matter to the Communist, Nazi or Hutu?
                                ...or to the slave-owners, the Crusaders, the Conquistadors and other colonial powers that virtually wiped out the indigenous cultures of Native Americans and Australian Aborigine not to mention the millions that were killed during the Crusades and the European wars of religion. Gods can be just as murderous as any other ideological beliefs.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

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