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 Tassman View Post
    The USA a also secular state as per Israel and is no more in a position to legislate against abortion than Israel is to legislate for it.
    A valiant attempt to move the goalposts....
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Tass, you're talking to yourself! And then you proceed to post the same crap over and over and over.....
      No, he's directlly responding to a brick wall, and I'm sure he's well aware of that, but the brick wall is not necessarily his target.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        A valiant attempt to move the goalposts....
        Valiant?
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • 1. So you understand ‘progress’ in terms of branching, where each branch B branches into a sub-branch S such that it’s possible that the rules of optimization for S might change relative to B. So, an B’s progress ends and S’s progress begins. Call the tree on which such branching happens T. Progress in T would have to be explained in terms of all the different little types of progress that persist along all the B’s until B ceases and S’s begin. Progress could be attributed to T in a divisional sense: in the sense that, for any B or S picked out on T, there are varying phenomena of progress with their own optimizations. But it’s hard for me to make sense of the thesis that T as a whole has any kind of set progress; instances of progress are properties of the parts of T (B or S), but not a property of T itself - like saying that every part of an elephant is light, but that it would be illicit to infer that the elephant as a whole is therefore light.

          2. Morality might not have an objective, fixed goal relative to T, but it would be hard to deny objective, fixed goals relative to the particular optimizations of B or S. The ‘protections of what people value’ couldn’t be understood in terms of T, but only in terms of B or S. From the premise that what people value changes over time is completely compatible with their being an objective morality governing T: what would change wouldn’t be the values inherent in objective morality itself, but its relative application in relation to whatever evolutionary optimizations happen to be going on. I’ve never seen evolution as debunking objective morality, but I have seen evolution espoused by atheists spelling trouble for the notion of moral progress in terms of T. Species-optimizations in terms of environmental niches could overlap with moral goodness or evil, unless you want to qualify the conditions of this criterion a bit. But if whatever the optimizations churn out is good, then goodness becomes trivial and without content. Goodness is jump from fact to value. Any outlining of the facts of environmental optimizations aren’t going to be enough for me to jump from sociological, anthropological data to moral data.
          Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
          George Horne

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
            1. So you understand ‘progress’ in terms of branching, where each branch B branches into a sub-branch S such that it’s possible that the rules of optimization for S might change relative to B. So, an B’s progress ends and S’s progress begins. Call the tree on which such branching happens T. Progress in T would have to be explained in terms of all the different little types of progress that persist along all the B’s until B ceases and S’s begin. Progress could be attributed to T in a divisional sense: in the sense that, for any B or S picked out on T, there are varying phenomena of progress with their own optimizations. But it’s hard for me to make sense of the thesis that T as a whole has any kind of set progress; instances of progress are properties of the parts of T (B or S), but not a property of T itself - like saying that every part of an elephant is light, but that it would be illicit to infer that the elephant as a whole is therefore light.

            2. Morality might not have an objective, fixed goal relative to T, but it would be hard to deny objective, fixed goals relative to the particular optimizations of B or S. The ‘protections of what people value’ couldn’t be understood in terms of T, but only in terms of B or S. From the premise that what people value changes over time is completely compatible with their being an objective morality governing T: what would change wouldn’t be the values inherent in objective morality itself, but its relative application in relation to whatever evolutionary optimizations happen to be going on. I’ve never seen evolution as debunking objective morality, but I have seen evolution espoused by atheists spelling trouble for the notion of moral progress in terms of T. Species-optimizations in terms of environmental niches could overlap with moral goodness or evil, unless you want to qualify the conditions of this criterion a bit. But if whatever the optimizations churn out is good, then goodness becomes trivial and without content. Goodness is jump from fact to value. Any outlining of the facts of environmental optimizations aren’t going to be enough for me to jump from sociological, anthropological data to moral data.
            My response is to harness the imagery of the tree. Even B and S have no "fixed" objective or goal, except to optimize sunlight for the tree. B continues to grow even when an S forms, and S gives rise to other S, and each branch arcs towards the best available sunlight to maximize photosynthesis for the tree. But the specific path any B or S takes is a function of the position of the sun and the paths the other Bs and Ss take. It also depends on the existence of other Ts and their position with relation to this T. That's how a tree grows. That's how evolution works. Essentially, that's how morality works as well. As with evolution, you can only understand "progress" in relation to the context and environment - it is not an "absolute" measure because, like evolution, it does not have a fixed objective (except as a tool to sort the actions of a sentient being, as related to things most valued, into "ought" and "ought not").
            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
              The USA a also secular state as per Israel and is no more in a position to legislate against abortion than Israel is to legislate for it.
              I do not consider Israel to be a secular state. The secular status of the US government is loosing ground.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                My response is to harness the imagery of the tree. Even B and S have no "fixed" objective or goal, except to optimize sunlight for the tree. B continues to grow even when an S forms, and S gives rise to other S, and each branch arcs towards the best available sunlight to maximize photosynthesis for the tree. But the specific path any B or S takes is a function of the position of the sun and the paths the other Bs and Ss take. It also depends on the existence of other Ts and their position with relation to this T. That's how a tree grows. That's how evolution works. Essentially, that's how morality works as well. As with evolution, you can only understand "progress" in relation to the context and environment - it is not an "absolute" measure because, like evolution, it does not have a fixed objective (except as a tool to sort the actions of a sentient being, as related to things most valued, into "ought" and "ought not").
                As an aside, I’m not sure what these other T’s would be. In the confines of my analogy, T just is the Tree of Life, either biologically on this planet or writ large cosmically that lead to the B on this planet.

                You keep mentioning progress in terms of this relation to context and environment - what I had mentioned as the rules of optimization previously. The problem is that it’s really easy to formulate this absolute measure or fixed objective that you’re saying is incompatible with this picture.

                Consider the following as a Proposed Moral Maxim (PMM): For any environmental context EC, and for all evolved agents capable of grasping morality A, if the rules for EC are sufficiently optimized, then A ought to value the end that’s built-in to whatever B or S that A happens to be populating.

                Not only does PMM seem absolute (e.g. exceptionless), but it also seems universal, since PMM would equally apply to any and every A no matter where they’re populated on any part of T. Moreover, PMM would seem undeniably objective, since PMM would be an indicative (capable of being true or false, and so excluding non-cognitivism), universally quantified conditional proposition whose consequent follows necessarily from its antecedent. PMM would be a maxim that was ‘about’ the moral status of properties and states of affairs in the world, rather than psychological states of A. You note that it’s objective as well, as a tool for sorting actions. Right. Sorting those actions that, per PMM, are objectively, universally, and absolutely to be valued (no matter what), relative to whatever B or S that A happens to populate. But relativity here would do nothing to inject relativity into PMM. So, we’re back where we started: relative applications of morality vs. the objective, absolute, universal morality itself.
                Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                George Horne

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  I do not consider Israel to be a secular state. The secular status of the US government is loosing ground.
                  I think technically Israel is a secular state as is the USA, but in practise not so much.
                  “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 mattbballman31 View Post
                    As an aside, I’m not sure what these other T’s would be. In the confines of my analogy, T just is the Tree of Life, either biologically on this planet or writ large cosmically that lead to the B on this planet.
                    Since morality is relative, the other T's are the moral frameworks of other sentient beings.

                    Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                    You keep mentioning progress in terms of this relation to context and environment - what I had mentioned as the rules of optimization previously. The problem is that it’s really easy to formulate this absolute measure or fixed objective that you’re saying is incompatible with this picture.

                    Consider the following as a Proposed Moral Maxim (PMM): For any environmental context EC, and for all evolved agents capable of grasping morality A, if the rules for EC are sufficiently optimized, then A ought to value the end that’s built-in to whatever B or S that A happens to be populating.

                    Not only does PMM seem absolute (e.g. exceptionless), but it also seems universal, since PMM would equally apply to any and every A no matter where they’re populated on any part of T. Moreover, PMM would seem undeniably objective, since PMM would be an indicative (capable of being true or false, and so excluding non-cognitivism), universally quantified conditional proposition whose consequent follows necessarily from its antecedent. PMM would be a maxim that was ‘about’ the moral status of properties and states of affairs in the world, rather than psychological states of A. You note that it’s objective as well, as a tool for sorting actions. Right. Sorting those actions that, per PMM, are objectively, universally, and absolutely to be valued (no matter what), relative to whatever B or S that A happens to populate. But relativity here would do nothing to inject relativity into PMM. So, we’re back where we started: relative applications of morality vs. the objective, absolute, universal morality itself.
                    Of course, things get a bit convoluted when you understand that the moral agent is itself part of the environment being defined. To whit - what the moral agent fundamentally values (e.g., liberty, life, happiness, etc.), and their ability to reason is what will serve as the basis for their moral framework. If Moral Agent A values life, and Moral Agent B does not, their moral frameworks will not align. If Moral Agent C values life, they will see a shift by Moral Agent A to not valuing life as a "retreat" or "regress" rather than progress. They will see a shift by Moral Agent B to valuing life as "progress." From any "objective" assessment, there is no progress or regress - only change.

                    But we measure changes in other moral frameworks against our own - so we see progress when alignment is increased, and regress when alignment is decreased.
                    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
                      Since morality is relative, the other T's are the moral frameworks of other sentient beings.



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

                      But we measure changes in other moral frameworks against our own - so we see progress when alignment is increased, and regress when alignment is decreased.
                      I didn’t see any interaction with the sense in which I already agree that morality is relative in its application without sacrificing the objective, absolute, universal nature of morality in terms of what I pointed out regarding PMM, above. All of this is compatible with the moral agent being part of the environment being defined. The ability for the moral agent to reason wouldn’t do anything either: PMM is a product of a particular moral agent’s reasoning about the nature of relative application of an objective, absolute, universal moral principle. The misalignment of moral frameworks is explained by the varying applications of PMM in their particular environments and the environment’s framework of optimization, if the optimization includes valuing life. Per PMM, if such an optimization includes valuing life for agent C, and agent A and B also populate that particular optimization-framework in that environment, then it will absolutely, objectively, and universally be the case that A and B are wrong and C is right. If A and B were to come around and ‘progress’ toward valuing life in alignment with C, the progress will be in terms of relative application of PMM to their particular optimization frameworks. This distinction needs to be taken into account. You either need to provide reason for discarding PMM in a such a way that it couldn’t be relevant to the relativity of application or bite the bullet and admit that optimization-frameworks don’t logically exclude PMM-type principles.
                      Last edited by mattbballman31; 10-21-2018, 05:47 PM.
                      Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                      George Horne

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                        I didn’t see any interaction with the sense in which I already agree that morality is relative in its application without sacrificing the objective, absolute, universal nature of morality in terms of what I pointed out regarding PMM, above. All of this is compatible with the moral agent being part of the environment being defined. The ability for the moral agent to reason wouldn’t do anything either: PMM is a product of a particular moral agent’s reasoning about the nature of relative application of an objective, absolute, universal moral principle. The misalignment of moral frameworks is explained by the varying applications of PMM in their particular environments and the environment’s framework of optimization, if the optimization includes valuing life. Per PMM, if such an optimization includes valuing life for agent C, and agent A and B also populate that particular optimization-framework in that environment, then it will absolutely, objectively, and universally be the case that A and B are wrong and C is right. If A and B were to come around and ‘progress’ toward valuing life in alignment with C, the progress will be in terms of relative application of PMM to their particular optimization frameworks. This distinction needs to be taken into account. You either need to provide reason for discarding PMM in a such a way that it couldn’t be relevant to the relativity of application or bite the bullet and admit that optimization-frameworks don’t logically exclude PMM-type principles.
                        Except, Matt - you and the other moral absolutists cannot even show the existence of a "moral absolute" or "absolute framework." You can repeatedly claim it exists, and we are all supposed to be measuring ourselves against it, but no one here can actually show what it IS, or show THAT it is. We don't need to add anything to moral relativism/subjectivism. It already works and has worked for hundreds of years. It explains the differences between people's moral positions, and why the moral positions of groups shifts over time.

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

                          Occam's Razor - don't add something to an explanation that is not necessary to the explanation.
                          Sure. I admit that I haven’t shown an absolute framework exists. That hadn’t been my intention. My intention was to demonstrate that your evolutionary picture of morality not only didn’t exclude it, but didn’t account for the fact that it presupposed it insofar as it claimed progress within the relative applications of PMM within particular optimization-frameworks. Demonstrating an absolute framework would be a separate issue, but I think I can provide an indirect proof of it using the evolutionary premises you’ve stipulated to explain progress the way you have. That wouldn’t be my tactic, though. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘showing what it is’. I agree with Occam’s Razor and, as a Christian, I’d, of course, believe that an absolute framework is necessary for explaining our moral experience, not only from my own epistemic priors, but - as I said - using the premises in your own evolutionary analysis of progress. I hope you know that moral relativism and moral subjectivism are two different theses: the former is a thesis of normative ethics and the latter is a thesis of metaethics. I do not believe that either adequately explain people’s moral positions and adequately explains everything that’s going on with the changes of moral positions relative to groups over time. In other words, I don’t believe the latter claim can be used as a premise in a philosophical argument leading to the conclusion that either relativism is true or that absolute morality is false. But I’ll go in whatever direction you want.
                          Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                          George Horne

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                            Sure. I admit that I haven’t shown an absolute framework exists. That hadn’t been my intention. My intention was to demonstrate that your evolutionary picture of morality not only didn’t exclude it, but didn’t account for the fact that it presupposed it insofar as it claimed progress within the relative applications of PMM within particular optimization-frameworks.
                            As best I can tell, proving/disproving the existence of an "absolute moral framework" is somewhat akin to proving/disproving the existence of a god: it cannot be done. Both are more a matter of faith and not subject to any kind of rigorous proof.

                            Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                            Demonstrating an absolute framework would be a separate issue, but I think I can provide an indirect proof of it using the evolutionary premises you’ve stipulated to explain progress the way you have. That wouldn’t be my tactic, though. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘showing what it is’. I agree with Occam’s Razor and, as a Christian, I’d, of course, believe that an absolute framework is necessary for explaining our moral experience, not only from my own epistemic priors, but - as I said - using the premises in your own evolutionary analysis of progress.
                            Then there is something in your explanation that I have missed, because it does not seem to me that you've accomplished this at all.

                            Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                            I hope you know that moral relativism and moral subjectivism are two different theses: the former is a thesis of normative ethics and the latter is a thesis of metaethics. I do not believe that either adequately explain people’s moral positions and adequately explains everything that’s going on with the changes of moral positions relative to groups over time. In other words, I don’t believe the latter claim can be used as a premise in a philosophical argument leading to the conclusion that either relativism is true or that absolute morality is false. But I’ll go in whatever direction you want.
                            And here you are wandering into a level of cryptospeak I just don't spend time on. I use "moral relativism" and "moral subjectivism" more or less interchangeably. Each of us has a moral framework that is rooted in what we value, how we reason, and how that guides us to sort "ought" from "ought not." So morality is subjective to the individual. As a consequence, moral decisions will be relative to the individual. I understand that "moral relativism" is also used to reflect the belief that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect universal or absolute moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Because these circumstances reflect "collective" moral norms, I take that as a given, with one caveat: because Culture X or Historical Period Y operated with Moral Framework Z - that does not make Moral Framework Z binding on me. There is only one moral framework that is binding on me - it is the one through which I view the world and assess all moral actions: my own moral framework.
                            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
                              As best I can tell, proving/disproving the existence of an "absolute moral framework" is somewhat akin to proving/disproving the existence of a god: it cannot be done. Both are more a matter of faith and not subject to any kind of rigorous proof.



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



                              And here you are wandering into a level of cryptospeak I just don't spend time on. I use "moral relativism" and "moral subjectivism" more or less interchangeably. Each of us has a moral framework that is rooted in what we value, how we reason, and how that guides us to sort "ought" from "ought not." So morality is subjective to the individual. As a consequence, moral decisions will be relative to the individual. I understand that "moral relativism" is also used to reflect the belief that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect universal or absolute moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Because these circumstances reflect "collective" moral norms, I take that as a given, with one caveat: because Culture X or Historical Period Y operated with Moral Framework Z - that does not make Moral Framework Z binding on me. There is only one moral framework that is binding on me - it is the one through which I view the world and assess all moral actions: my own moral framework.
                              If you’re going to stipulate that relativism and subjectivism are the same thing, I’ll go along with that; however, I feel that you must know that these terms are not interchangeable in the literature, and (to my ears) to stipulate that they are, sounds like a person who knows next to nothing about a car engine telling a car mechanic of 50 years that, for the purposes of stipulation, he is going to be using ‘coolant’ and ‘oil’ interchangeably.

                              Your inferences are quite jarring. For example, you note (and I agree) that moral frameworks are rooted (in some as yet undefined sense) in what we value, how we reason, and considerations of practical normative sorting-strategies. To infer from this that therefore morality is subjective (especially if subjective is stipulated as being the same as relative: and, again, I’m not sure in what direction the stipulation is supposed to go - let’s just say the former) is a naked non sequitur. I myself believe in all three of these elements when the terms are defined a little more precisely and I am a moral absolutist and a moral objectivist and a moral realist. Therefore, the consequences you draw from the non sequitur are harmless. But I’ll consider them anyway.

                              I appreciate your attempt to provide an analysis of moral relativism. It’s incorrect. Moral relativism is a thesis of normative ethics, not metaethics. Your analysis immediately delved in the nature of moral/ethical propositions, which is the metaethical study of moral semantics. If your contention is that moral/ethical proposition are not truth-apt, you’re a moral anti-realist. This is fine. But this will divert the discussion from what I thought was a discussion of normative ethics. The consequence you draw from moral/ethical propositions not being truth-apt is the thesis that such claims are relative to x, y, and z. Right. This would be a metaethical relativism. Not only do I think I have very good reasons to reject such an odd form of relativism, the reasons you’ve provided for endorsing it are extremely thin. Your basic strategy is to state a thesis and somehow confuse arguing to the thesis as a conclusion in an argument with informing me what the consequences are if I accept your thesis. Well, I don’t accept your consequences and I have no good reason to accept your thesis.

                              Your attempt at demonstrating that moral propositions are relative to personal circumstances includes the idea that such circumstances reflect collective moral norms. The generality of such statements is very unhelpful because my position can assimilate every word of your vocabulary with unperturbed serenity. Unfortunately, one can’t ask for further conceptual precision without being guilty of veering into cryptospeak. Well, if such precision will be interpreted as that, then this conversation is nearing its end, as we’re just going to be hitting what you think is a wall (and then going sideways), but what I think is a wall with a bunch doors (represented by further conceptual precision). It’s up to you!

                              There are other wild inferences I’m unable to follow. You mention that a moral framework is binding on you if, and only if, it’s your own moral framework. Yes. I agree. The force you’re going to feel in normative circumstances is only going to be felt if you’ve ‘owned’ (so to speak) the moral framework you’ve chosen to live by. But I’ve been presented with no reason to think this is incompatible with moral absolutism or moral objectivism, and no good reason to think that mentioning how a moral framework is binding has anything to do with reasons for and against moral/ethical propositions being truth-apt. Because you’ve forbidden conceptual clarity as wondering into the no-man’s-land of cryptospeak, you’re entangling yourself in category errors, false inferences, and ambiguities.
                              Last edited by mattbballman31; 10-25-2018, 03:32 PM.
                              Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                              George Horne

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                                If you’re going to stipulate that relativism and subjectivism are the same thing, I’ll go along with that; however, I feel that you must know that these terms are not interchangeable in the literature, and (to my ears) to stipulate that they are, sounds like a person who knows next to nothing about a car engine telling a car mechanic of 50 years that, for the purposes of stipulation, he is going to be using ‘coolant’ and ‘oil’ interchangeably.
                                If that is indeed the case, I would suggest that the car mechanic should be having his conversations with someone else. S/he is likely wasting his/her time with the automotive illiterate.

                                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                                Your inferences are quite jarring. For example, you note (and I agree) that moral frameworks are rooted (in some as yet undefined sense) in what we value, how we reason, and considerations of practical normative sorting-strategies. To infer from this that therefore morality is subjective (especially if subjective is stipulated as being the same as relative: and, again, I’m not sure in what direction the stipulation is supposed to go - let’s just say the former) is a naked non sequitur. I myself believe in all three of these elements when the terms are defined a little more precisely and I am a moral absolutist and a moral objectivist and a moral realist. Therefore, the consequences you draw from the non sequitur are harmless. But I’ll consider them anyway.
                                How kind..

                                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                                I appreciate your attempt to provide an analysis of moral relativism. It’s incorrect. Moral relativism is a thesis of normative ethics, not metaethics. Your analysis immediately delved in the nature of moral/ethical propositions, which is the metaethical study of moral semantics. If your contention is that moral/ethical proposition are not truth-apt, you’re a moral anti-realist. This is fine. But this will divert the discussion from what I thought was a discussion of normative ethics. The consequence you draw from moral/ethical propositions not being truth-apt is the thesis that such claims are relative to x, y, and z. Right. This would be a metaethical relativism. Not only do I think I have very good reasons to reject such an odd form of relativism, the reasons you’ve provided for endorsing it are extremely thin. Your basic strategy is to state a thesis and somehow confuse arguing to the thesis as a conclusion in an argument with informing me what the consequences are if I accept your thesis. Well, I don’t accept your consequences and I have no good reason to accept your thesis.
                                A thesis you have no reason to accept should be rejected. Outside of that, the rest of this paragraph has little/no meaning to me. It might be because I don't understand cars.

                                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                                Your attempt at demonstrating that moral propositions are relative to personal circumstances includes the idea that such circumstances reflect collective moral norms. The generality of such statements is very unhelpful because my position can assimilate every word of your vocabulary with unperturbed serenity. Unfortunately, one can’t ask for further conceptual precision without being guilty of veering into cryptospeak. Well, if such precision will be interpreted as that, then this conversation is nearing its end, as we’re just going to be hitting what you think is a wall (and then going sideways), but what I think is a wall with a bunch doors (represented by further conceptual precision). It’s up to you!
                                Actually, it's not. I find that it is perfectly possible to discuss things without engaging in cryptospeak. Let me tell you a story, if I may.

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

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

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

                                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                                There are other wild inferences I’m unable to follow. You mention that a moral framework is binding on you if, and only if, it’s your own moral framework. Yes. I agree. The force you’re going to feel in normative circumstances is only going to be felt if you’ve ‘owned’ (so to speak) the moral framework you’ve chosen to live by. But I’ve been presented with no reason to think this is incompatible with moral absolutism or moral objectivism, and no good reason to think that mentioning how a moral framework is binding has anything to do with reasons for and against moral/ethical propositions being truth-apt. Because you’ve forbidden conceptual clarity as wondering into the no-man’s-land of cryptospeak, you’re entangling yourself in category errors, false inferences, and ambiguities.
                                It is not incompatible with moral absolutism, Matt. The problem is that the moral absolutist cannot show that an absolute moral framework actually exists. As I have noted several times - do not add to an explanation an element unnecessary to the explanation. Moral relativism explains how moralism works. It accounts for all of its dynamics. And it does not require me to include an absolute framework I cannot show to actually exist - not to mention cannot show that there is an absolute interpretation thereof. If you're going to make a case for moral absolutism, it seems to me you have to show something fairly basic: how does moral absolutism solve a problem that moral relativism cannot? Then, perhaps, we can get somewhere.

                                As for the rest - I leave it to you to decide if you wish to remain in the world of cryptospeak. I am actually a ready and willing learner. But I have little patience for the teacher with an ego problem. I will learn from the teacher interested in teaching. I will reject the teacher only interested in fluffing their own ego.
                                Last edited by carpedm9587; 10-30-2018, 08:08 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