Originally posted by seer
View Post
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
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
-
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostUnfortunately for him (if that is what he is doing), his explanation doesn't work, since what is or is not moral is something I determine for myself. The individual always has primacy. If you think otherwise, ask yourself what your response would be if someone suggested to you that X is moral and you believe it to be immoral. Unless they made an argument that influenced you to alter your position - you would insist on holding your moral stance. It's what we all do.
That argument will necessarily be rooted in trying to link the moral position to something you value/cherish.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThis is one section from Michael Huemer's "Moral Objectivism"
If your 'meta-theory' consists in the denial of the existence of any subject matter for your theory, how can you continue to have a theory? Suppose that it were claimed that chemicals have no objective existence: can anybody imagine that the adoption of this belief would have no effect on the science of chemistry? Obviously, the entire science would be undermined. By analogy, if someone says that values have no objective existence, moral philosophy is undermined since it has no subject matter. It is then comparable to the study of unicorns. Nothing positive you say about unicorns can be true since there aren't any unicorns. And it makes no sense to say, "Well, I agree that unicorns are not real, but I still think this is a unicorn." How is it any different to say, "Well, I agree that values aren't real, but I still think this is a value"?
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 PostThis seems to follow:
If your 'meta-theory' consists in the denial of the existence of any subject matter for your theory, how can you continue to have a theory? Suppose that it were claimed that chemicals have no objective existence: can anybody imagine that the adoption of this belief would have no effect on the science of chemistry? Obviously, the entire science would be undermined. By analogy, if someone says that values have no objective existence, moral philosophy is undermined since it has no subject matter. It is then comparable to the study of unicorns. Nothing positive you say about unicorns can be true since there aren't any unicorns. And it makes no sense to say, "Well, I agree that unicorns are not real, but I still think this is a unicorn." How is it any different to say, "Well, I agree that values aren't real, but I still think this is a value"?
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostNot sure what you are asking. I'm simply suggesting that you haven't, IMO, provided adequate justification for abandoning the language of morality on the basis of individual vs. society. Ergo, I see no reason for abandoning it.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAs I was reading this response, it dawned on me that Tass and Seer are both wrong about the highlighted line (highlights added by me). Tass captures the reason later in the line. As living creatures on this planet, humans are part of nature - and we most certainly care whether or not we survive. Indeed, most living creatures have a drive, conscious or unconscious or instinctual, to survive. So, in a sense, nature DOES care if we survive - because WE do, and we are part of "nature."
Just a thought...Last edited by Tassman; 09-20-2019, 12:30 AM.“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 PostNot is not irrelevant in this context, perhaps some people value other things over what the index measures. It is ALL subjective Tass, and always will be.
Again, in your morally relative world there are no objective moral goals, nor can there be. And you trying to make is so doesn't make it so.
Yes there is change - like the increasing rise of Islam worldwide especially in Europe. Yes, there will be a lot of change in Europe in 50 years, never mind the increasing power of Communist China.
Well it was not my denomination, or most denominations here in New England.
There were sufficient Christians who supported slavery in the US, to necessitate a civil war to end the practice. And it took the Civil Rights Act, to enforce equal rights for blacks and the rest of the population.
So why do things like slavery or genocide bother you since they are perfectly natural acts? Why does nature upset you?
So what if we care? How are we any more worthy of life than all the species that went extinct in the past?
Yep, I don't think the Christian baker should be forced to participate in a gay wedding.
Until they go instinct.“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 PostUnless you intend suicide. But I was speaking of the laws of nature that created us - they care nothing for our survival nor do they intend that we do survive.
In general, "laws" and "concepts" and "principles" are neither sentient nor sapient. It's a little odd to speak of them as if they could be.
I have to admit, I have no idea what it is you are trying to show/prove. I am clearly part of nature. I have intention. Therefore nature, at least in part, is capable of intention. So long as there is sapient life, "intention" will be part of nature.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 PostThe "laws of nature" did not create me. My parents created me. The laws of nature are simply a description of the how the universe in which they live operates. I'm pretty sure my parents intended that I survive. Dad has passed, so he no longer does. Mom certainly does.
In general, "laws" and "concepts" and "principles" are neither sentient nor sapient. It's a little odd to speak of them as if they could be.
I have to admit, I have no idea what it is you are trying to show/prove. I am clearly part of nature. I have intention. Therefore nature, at least in part, is capable of intention. So long as there is sapient life, "intention" will be part of nature.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 Jim B. View PostThis is one section from Michael Huemer's "Moral Objectivism"Since rational judgement presupposes some ground apart from the judgement on which for it to be based, the denial of objectivism implies the intrinsic impossibility of rational moral judgement,since said denial means that moral values cannot have any independent existence apart from the mind.
Huemer's error is in his first sentence, and involves two things. First, he is assuming that morality exists apart from the mind. That is pretty much the entire point: morality is strictly a function of the mind. It does not have an independent reality separate from sapient minds. No one has ever shown morality to have such a separate existence - it is merely assumed. Moral principles are not "out there to be found" but rather "in here to be defined." The only moral principles that are "out there to be found" are the generalized principles that govern the operation of societies - but those principles are nothing more than the collective principles of the members of that society, typically as expressed by the majority. When a principle is very widely held (i.e., prohibitions against random killing or forced sexual activity), those who do not agree are seen as outliers and generally shunned in one form or another. When the moral principle is NOT widely held, but held by a substantial part of the society, the society is in conflict and there is no clear "social moral principle."
Heumer makes another error in that very first sentence: he assumes "rational judgement" requires objective premises, thereby assuming his conclusion. Rationality is not limited to objective premises. Rational arguments are arguments that are valid and sound. A valid argument takes the form:
P1) If a then b
P2) a
C) Therefore b
The conclusion of a valid argument is true if the premises are true. A valid argument with true premises is called a sound argument. You will find this definition in pretty much every Logic 101 textbook. Notice that the definition says nothing about the premises of a sound argument being objectively true. They merely must be true.
P1) If that restaurant services pizza, I want to eat there
P2) That restaurant serves pizza
C) I want to eat there.
Perfectly valid structure, and the conclusion is true if P1 and P2 are true. P2 is objectively true, P1 is subjectively true. Perfectly rational. We make decisions like this all the time. Rationality is not constrained to the world of the objectively true. However, there is a constraint here: there is no mechanism I know of by which a subjectively true premise can be PROVEN to be true by rational means. We are dependent on the report of the subject in question.
At the end of the day, morality is a specific form of preference. Each of us roots our morality in a variety of things. Personal experience is key, but it includes experiences of society, religion, family, local community, friends, neighbors, colleagues, etc. We are influenced by these sources via personal contact, social media, media in general, education systems, books, movies, etc. But morality is rooted in the individual, and the individual always has primacy. Short of some form of mind-control (which strips an individual of moral agency, negating the concept of morality completely), there is no means by which one individual can impose or force their moral agency on another because morality is a function of the mind. We can and do control behavior - but not the underlying moral principles. At best we can attempt to influence them, and will be more or less successful depending on a variety of circumstances.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 PostThe indices regarding The World Happiness Report and The Human Development Index are designed to minimize such discrepancies.
And in YOUR world also. The evolving social values of the day are what guide community morality. YOUR so-called “objective moral goals” have changed over time according to these social values. And scriptural texts have been selected accordingly to support them. Slavery is one example of evolving “objective morality”, as was the subjugation of women until relatively recently.
Exactly. There is demonstrable, ongoing moral “change” in our world and there has been throughout human history.
Yeah right: “it wasn’t me, it’s them others.”
There were sufficient Christians who supported slavery in the US, to necessitate a civil war to end the practice. And it took the Civil Rights Act, to enforce equal rights for blacks and the rest of the population.
The social mores of our current society value ALL human life equally. Hence “slavery or genocide” are considered an abomination. For more primitive tribal societies this was not the case (e.g. Moses and the Israelite's), but, as you acknowledge above, social values “change” over time.
We are NOT “more worthy of life than all the species that went extinct in the past”. But we instinctively care whether we survive or not…as do all living creatures.
So, you are claiming the right to discriminate against those you dislike on the basis of personal prejudice.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 PostHeumer makes another error in that very first sentence: he assumes "rational judgement" requires objective premises, thereby assuming his conclusion. Rationality is not limited to objective premises. Rational arguments are arguments that are valid and sound. A valid argument takes the form:
P1) If a then b
P2) a
C) Therefore b
The conclusion of a valid argument is true if the premises are true. A valid argument with true premises is called a sound argument. You will find this definition in pretty much every Logic 101 textbook. Notice that the definition says nothing about the premises of a sound argument being objectively true. They merely must be true.
P1) If that restaurant services pizza, I want to eat there
P2) That restaurant serves pizza
C) I want to eat there.
Perfectly valid structure, and the conclusion is true if P1 and P2 are true. P2 is objectively true, P1 is subjectively true. Perfectly rational. We make decisions like this all the time. Rationality is not constrained to the world of the objectively true. However, there is a constraint here: there is no mechanism I know of by which a subjectively true premise can be PROVEN to be true by rational means. We are dependent on the report of the subject in question.
At the end of the day, morality is a specific form of preference. Each of us roots our morality in a variety of things. Personal experience is key, but it includes experiences of society, religion, family, local community, friends, neighbors, colleagues, etc. We are influenced by these sources via personal contact, social media, media in general, education systems, books, movies, etc. But morality is rooted in the individual, and the individual always has primacy. Short of some form of mind-control (which strips an individual of moral agency, negating the concept of morality completely), there is no means by which one individual can impose or force their moral agency on another because morality is a function of the mind. We can and do control behavior - but not the underlying moral principles. At best we can attempt to influence them, and will be more or less successful depending on a variety of circumstances.
Carp, I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with here:
By analogy, if someone says that values have no objective existence, moral philosophy is undermined since it has no subject matter. It is then comparable to the study of unicorns. Nothing positive you say about unicorns can be true since there aren't any unicorns. And it makes no sense to say, "Well, I agree that unicorns are not real, but I still think this is a unicorn." How is it any different to say, "Well, I agree that values aren't real, but I still think this is a value"?
Even with your pizza example you are still pointing to the objective existence of pizza. It would be strange if you showed a preference for pizza when pizza did not objectively exist.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 PostCarp, I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with here:
By analogy, if someone says that values have no objective existence, moral philosophy is undermined since it has no subject matter. It is then comparable to the study of unicorns. Nothing positive you say about unicorns can be true since there aren't any unicorns. And it makes no sense to say, "Well, I agree that unicorns are not real, but I still think this is a unicorn." How is it any different to say, "Well, I agree that values aren't real, but I still think this is a value"?
Even with your pizza example you are still pointing to the objective existence of pizza. It would be strange if you showed a preference for pizza when pizza did not objectively exist.
As for the pizza - you are conflating the object of my liking with the liking itself, hence your confusion.Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-20-2019, 08:42 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 carpedm9587 View PostAgain - you are assuming your conclusion. A thing does not cease to exist because it is subjective. My love of pizza exists - but it exists subjectively in me. The concept of a unicorn also exists, as an idea in a mind. The unicorn does not exist objectively - it does not have an existence separate from the mind. Likewise, morality does not have an existence separate from "mind."
As for the pizza - you are conflating the object of my liking with the liking itself, hence your confusion.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 PostSo like with the unicorn when you speak of values you are speaking of something that doesn't exist. There is no subject matter as Heumer states...
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
597 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment