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
    And again, that is just untrue. And I suspect that your circle of friends is rather limited.
    Seer - they can say anything they wish - if they accept citizenship and remain within a country based on "consent of the governed," their choice to stay and their citizenship IS their consent. They may disagree with this law or that law - and they may practice any form of civil disobedience they wish, but their citizenship is an agreement to abide by the law and confers on the government the right (which combined with power constitutes authority) to enforce those laws.

    You can ignore this reality all you wish. It is the basis for our political experiment. "I want it all my way" is a common theme from many people today. That is not the nature of a democratic republic, which is the form of government "we the people" have selected.
    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
      Seer - they can say anything they wish - if they accept citizenship and remain within a country based on "consent of the governed," their choice to stay and their citizenship IS their consent. They may disagree with this law or that law - and they may practice any form of civil disobedience they wish, but their citizenship is an agreement to abide by the law and confers on the government the right (which combined with power constitutes authority) to enforce those laws.
      And you can say anything that you wish - like a government has no authority over you unless you consent to that authority. And no their choice to stay does not confer consent, that is your opinion, not theirs.
      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
        And you can say anything that you wish - like a government has no authority over you unless you consent to that authority. And no their choice to stay does not confer consent, that is your opinion, not theirs.
        You're the one not following the definition of "authority," Seer. And, at this point, I think we've long since run this into the ground. Last word to you.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          You're the one not following the definition of "authority," Seer. And, at this point, I think we've long since run this into the ground. Last word to you.
          Of course I'm following the definition since it does not tell us who/what grants said "right" to authority. Not one definition that you or I used said anything about that right or power being granted by general consent.
          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
            Jim -

            I have been through both of your posts and it strikes me that further back and forth is not going to get us anywhere, Furthermore, they are consuming a great deal of time. So I'm going to leave them and attempt a different approach. You seem to want to argue that morality is fundamentally an objective exercise. That is to say, there are moral principles that are objectively true and not subject to individual thoughts, ideas, or opinions. You should therefore be able to cite one objectively true moral principle and identify what makes that particular principle "moral" without any reference to subjectively selected valuing. That is the basis for my position concerning morality: that we cannot arrive at a moral claim without it being rooted in something we value that is subjectively selected, making the entire edifice of morality a subjective exercise. If you can demonstrate a moral claim that is NOT so rooted, then I would have to rethink my position.
            I wrote a long post then lost it because my network adapter kicked me off the internet. Let me try again. If I write fast...

            Morality is objective but there are no absolute, ie exceptionless, moral principles. My principles often clash with each other so that I have to 'rank' them and I have to apply them to individual situations, so that there is an element of 'individual thoughts, ideas, and opinions.' There is a subjective aspect of application but I am aiming at an objective framework

            As for a moral claim that is not rooted in subjective choice, consider truth-telling. Language is premised on the assumption of accurate observation and reporting. That is the background assumption of verbal communication. Even lying would not be possible without this assumption, because the liar takes advantage of the fact that his listeners believe he is telling the truth. This doesn't mean there aren't justifiable times to lie, like the famous example of lying to the Nazis about the Jewish family in your attic, etc. But in considering when it's justifiable to lie, its not a matter of one's individual choice that decides the matter. To save a family's life justifies a lie, but to take money that is not yours does not justify a lie. So the second-order calculus of whether the lie is just or not is not a matter of choice, even if there may be cases that are difficult to decide. (Is it justifiable to lie to Mary and tell her that she is not dying of cancer? If she told us earlier that she did not want to know, then it is. If she had insisted she DID want to know, then it isn't. The point is that it's not necessarily up to us.)

            The point is that there is a norm of truth that is inherent in being a language-user, and consequently, a prima facie (not exceptionless) duty to tell the truth as a language-user, and this duty is not a matter of individual choice.
            Last edited by Jim B.; 08-15-2019, 03:19 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              I wrote a long post then lost it because my network adapter kicked me off the internet. Let me try again. If I write fast...

              Morality is objective but there are no ojective, ie exceptionless, moral principles. My principles often clash with each other so that i have to 'rank' them and I have to apply them to individual situations, so that there is an element of 'individual thoughts, ideas, and opinions.' There is a subjective aspect of application but i am aiming at an objective framework.
              OK - what is that "objective framework" and demonstrate that it is, actually, objective.

              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              As for a moral claim that is not rooted in subjective choice, consider truth-telling. Language is premised on the assumption of accurate observation and reporting. That is the background assumption of verbal communication. Even lying would not be possible without this assumption, because the liar takes advantage of the fact that his listeners believe he is telling the truth. This doesn't mean there aren't justifiable times to lie, like the famous example of lying to the Nazis about the Jewish family in your attic, etc. But in considering when it's justifiable to lie, its not a matter of one's individual choice that decides the matter. To save a family's life justifies a lie, but to take money that is not yours does not justify a lie. So the second-order calculus of whether the lie is just or not is not a matter of choice, even if there may be cases that are difficult to decide. (Is it justifiable to lie to Mary and tell her that she is not dying of cancer? If she told us earlier that she did not want to know, the it is. If she had insisted she DID want to know, then it isn't. The point is that it's not necessarily up to us.)
              OK - there are so many problems here, I don't know where to start. First, it is not language that is premised on accurate observation and reporting. Language is simply the creation of symbols to express concepts verbally and in written form. It has nothing directly to do with truth or lying, except in so far as we can use language to do either. You are closer to the truth in noting that a liar takes advantage of the expectation of truth and THAT is because society is rooted in the concept of trust. Without trust, society breaks down. Then you boldly state "to save a family's life justifies a lie, but to take money that is not yours does not justify a lie," and claim there is no choice about this, as if these are objectively true moral norms without one shred of evidence that they are other than your assertion. I submit that they are widely held moral norms, but there is no means by which you can show them to be "objectively true" moral norms. However, feel free to try if you wish. And what exactly does "justify" mean in this context? And, finally, who says it is not "up to us." To quote someone I am just getting to know, that appears to be "begging the question" pretty badly.

              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              The point is that there is a norm of truth that is inherent in being a language-user, and consequently, a prima facie (not exceptionless) duty to tell the truth as a language-user, and this duty is not a matter of individual choice.
              Yes - there is a widely held moral norm that truth telling is moral and lying is immoral, and each of us has or list of exceptions in which this moral norm can be violated. If you think, however, that you have even begun to establish that this is an "objectively true moral norm," I don't see anything in your argument that makes that case.

              But subjective morality explains the dynamics quite well. In order for someone to see truth-telling as moral and lying as immoral, they would first have to highly value "society" or "community" or "personal interactions." If I value these things, I will see actions that threaten them (i.e., lying) as immoral and actions that enhance/support them (truth-telling) as moral. The exceptions to that basic moral principle occur when something I value more is threatened by truth-telling or enhanced/protected by lying. However, if I value money or personal ego or power above community/society, I may well see lying as a perfectly moral, "justified" means to achieving those ends. This is what we see in the current occupant of the White House every day of the week. The objective reality is the impact of lying on community/society/relationship. But the moral principle "lying is immoral" arises from valuing the things that lying attacks/degrades/destroys.
              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



                OK - there are so many problems here, I don't know where to start. First, it is not language that is premised on accurate observation and reporting. Language is simply the creation of symbols to express concepts verbally and in written form. It has nothing directly to do with truth or lying, except in so far as we can use language to do either. You are closer to the truth in noting that a liar takes advantage of the expectation of truth and THAT is because society is rooted in the concept of trust. Without trust, society breaks down. Then you boldly state "to save a family's life justifies a lie, but to take money that is not yours does not justify a lie," and claim there is no choice about this, as if these are objectively true moral norms without one shred of evidence that they are other than your assertion. I submit that they are widely held moral norms, but there is no means by which you can show them to be "objectively true" moral norms. However, feel free to try if you wish. And what exactly does "justify" mean in this context? And, finally, who says it is not "up to us." To quote someone I am just getting to know, that appears to be "begging the question" pretty badly.
                No, language is not just "the creation of symbols to express concepts verbally and in writing." That's a laughably reductive and impoverished definition that no linguist or philosopher of language would accept. We're not machines. And there is a 'norm of truth' implicit in language use. Try saying one sentence to anyone, even to yourself, without it. There are tacit background assumptions and capabilities to human activities that are not explicit but implicit. This is part of what differentiates us from machines.



                Yes - there is a widely held moral norm that truth telling is moral and lying is immoral, and each of us has or list of exceptions in which this moral norm can be violated. If you think, however, that you have even begun to establish that this is an "objectively true moral norm," I don't see anything in your argument that makes that case.
                Yes, society would break down without trust, but why do you think trust is such a paramount value among humans? Could it be that humans are linguistic? MY point was that there was an inherent logic and norm to language-use that lying violates. Why is it that only infra-linguistic humans and animals are held morally unaccountable, and that language proficiency is the exact threshold at which moral culpability begins? Is that mere coincidence?
                Last edited by Jim B.; 08-15-2019, 05:17 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  OK - there are so many problems here, I don't know where to start. First, it is not language that is premised on accurate observation and reporting. Language is simply the creation of symbols to express concepts verbally and in written form. It has nothing directly to do with truth or lying, except in so far as we can use language to do either. You are closer to the truth in noting that a liar takes advantage of the expectation of truth and THAT is because society is rooted in the concept of trust. Without trust, society breaks down. Then you boldly state "to save a family's life justifies a lie, but to take money that is not yours does not justify a lie," and claim there is no choice about this, as if these are objectively true moral norms without one shred of evidence that they are other than your assertion. I submit that they are widely held moral norms, but there is no means by which you can show them to be "objectively true" moral norms. However, feel free to try if you wish. And what exactly does "justify" mean in this context? And, finally, who says it is not "up to us." To quote someone I am just getting to know, that appears to be "begging the question" pretty badly.
                  I have to keep re-posting because of computer problems. This is getting really old!

                  As far as the justifiability of lying, according to the argument, Ive already established an 'objective' moral value to truth. If this is right, then we're in world O, the world of objective moral facts. So it's not begging the question to allow for objective moral facts in such a world - it's assuming the argument goes through. Your question-begging isn't based on an argument but on the assumption that your worldview is the correct one. In world O, some reasons for lying, such as protecting innocent life, would rank higher than others, such as acquiring money that isn't mine. This is because, just as there is an inherent logic and norm to truth, there is an inherent logic and norm to justice or fairness (equitable distribution), as in what rightfully belongs to an individual, as in one's life and property.



                  Yes - there is a widely held moral norm that truth telling is moral and lying is immoral, and each of us has or list of exceptions in which this moral norm can be violated. If you think, however, that you have even begun to establish that this is an "objectively true moral norm," I don't see anything in your argument that makes that case.
                  Well, make an actual argument for once, or an actual counter-argument, or something,

                  But subjective morality explains the dynamics quite well. In order for someone to see truth-telling as moral and lying as immoral, they would first have to highly value "society" or "community" or "personal interactions." If I value these things, I will see actions that threaten them (i.e., lying) as immoral and actions that enhance/support them (truth-telling) as moral. The exceptions to that basic moral principle occur when something I value more is threatened by truth-telling or enhanced/protected by lying. However, if I value money or personal ego or power above community/society, I may well see lying as a perfectly moral, "justified" means to achieving those ends. This is what we see in the current occupant of the White House every day of the week. The objective reality is the impact of lying on community/society/relationship. But the moral principle "lying is immoral" arises from valuing the things that lying attacks/degrades/destroys.
                  Why value community, etc? Eventually you have to arrive at a good or set of goods that are intrinsically valuable. People are more than value-seeking machines. We can apprehend and appreciate goods-in-themselves. Some things are not negotiable. Even when lying benefits us, this fact doesn't alter lying's moral status. How can you be sure that you have the causal direction right, that lying is wrong BECAUSE it is destructive and not that it is destructive because it is wrong? Neither of us can be dogmatic about it. And it is not essentially an empirical matter but a conceptual matter. es, Trump is immoral, but I think you let him off the hook too easily. You treat him like a natural disaster. You reduce him to his external effects like a tropical storm. He has a diseased soul and character. even if his lies benefitted me, and many of them arguably have in terms of the stock market, that has not affected my moral assessment of him one iota and never will.
                  Last edited by Jim B.; 08-15-2019, 05:55 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    I have to keep re-posting because of computer problems. This is getting really old!

                    As far as the justifiability of lying, according to the argument, Ive already established an 'objective' moral value to truth.
                    No - you haven't. You've identified an impact on society/communication when lies (or truth) become common. That is not a "moral" value. Someone who does not value either society or communication will see no moral value to "telling the truth." Case in point: Donald Trump - who not only lies regularly, but defends lying as justified if it serves the end of "winning" whatever it is he wants to win.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    If this is right, then we're in world O, the world of objective moral facts.
                    It's not right - so we're not in the world of objective moral facts.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    So it's not begging the question to allow for objective moral facts in such a world - it's assuming the argument goes through. Your question-begging isn't based on an argument but on the assumption that your worldview is the correct one. In world O, some reasons for lying, such as protecting innocent life, would rank higher than others, such as acquiring money that isn't mine. This is because, just as there is an inherent logic and norm to truth, there is an inherent logic and norm to justice or fairness (equitable distribution), as in what rightfully belongs to an individual, as in one's life and property.
                    Subjective morality addresses all of this, as I did in my previous post.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    SWell, make an actual argument for once, or an actual counter-argument, or something,
                    I did. Several points, actually, most of which you did not respond to and simply declared you had pointed out an "objective moral truth."

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Why value community, etc?
                    There are many reasons one might value community. It might be a matter of upbringing. It might be indoctrinated as a religious precept. It might simply the the utilitarian observation of "safety in numbers" or the mutual benefit of neighbor helping neighbor. There is no one reason why any of us values any particular thing.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Eventually you have to arrive at a good or set of goods that are intrinsically valuable.
                    Says who? You are assuming your conclusion here.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    People are more than value-seeking machines. We can apprehend and appreciate goods-in-themselves.
                    No - nothing is "good in itself." Something is "good" as measured by "Metric X" by "Person Y." What is "good" to one may be (and commonly is) "bad" to another. You cannot cite a single example of a thing that is good without citing "as measured by whom" and "according to what metric?" It is these things that make such a value judgement subjective.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Some things are not negotiable.
                    What does negotiation have to do with anything? I have many principles I will not negotiate on. That does not make them any less subjectively mine.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Even when lying benefits us, this fact doesn't alter lying's moral status. How can you be sure that you have the causal direction right, that lying is wrong BECAUSE it is destructive and not that it is destructive because it is wrong?
                    Your question introduces causality in a very odd way. We're talking about how one classifies actions (ought, ought not; moral, immoral). Your question is somewhat like asking "how do you know you have the causal direction right? How do you know horses are mammals because they bear living young and not that they bear living young because they are mammals?" We establish criteria for sorting animals into phyla, family, genus, etc. and then sort accordingly. Likewise, we establish criteria for sorting action into ought and ought not, and the sort accordingly.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Neither of us can be dogmatic about it. And it is not essentially an empirical matter but a conceptual matter. es, Trump is immoral, but I think you let him off the hook too easily. You treat him like a natural disaster. You reduce him to his external effects like a tropical storm. He has a diseased soul and character. even if his lies benefitted me, and many of them arguably have in terms of the stock market, that has not affected my moral assessment of him one iota and never will.
                    Trump is not a "natural disaster." He's a "sign of the times." Trump is an immoral man as measured by my moral framework. I share much of my moral framework in common with many (most) people, so he is an immoral man to many (most?) people as well. It boggles my mind that so many continue to support/defend him when he has shown himself to be so vile. I understand the forces that led to him being elected. But it is a sad commentary to our society in general that he continues to have so high a level of support by so much of our country. But all of that is tangential to the subjective/objective discussion, so I'll let you have the last word on Trump.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      No, language is not just "the creation of symbols to express concepts verbally and in writing." That's a laughably reductive and impoverished definition that no linguist or philosopher of language would accept.
                      Jim - you have this pattern to your posts. I make an observation, and you say, "no it's not that way - and others would laugh." I frankly don't care who does or does not laugh. Language is a collection of symbols that represent some aspect of reality and exists so we can communicate in verbal and written form. One definition is "the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way," which is consistent with what I have said. Most other definitions are along a similar vein. A dictionary is the recording of those symbols and their meaning associations. If you think language is other than that - by all means feel free to define what you think language is. But the response you just made is a good example of what I mean when I say "you haven't made an argument."

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      We're not machines.
                      At no point did I claim we were - so I don't see the point of this sentence.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      And there is a 'norm of truth' implicit in language use.
                      No - there isn't. There is a "norm" of truth in how we expect others interacting with us to USE language in communicating. We expect communication to be done with truth, and are surprised if/when it is not. But truth is not endemic to language per se. Language can be used equally to lie or to tell the truth, and it is still "language."

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Try saying one sentence to anyone, even to yourself, without it.
                      Without what? Truth?

                      "I have blond hair and weigh 165 pounds." Where is the "norm of truth" in this statement?

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      There are tacit background assumptions and capabilities to human activities that are not explicit but implicit. This is part of what differentiates us from machines.
                      I have no idea what this sentence means or how it even begins to apply to our discussion.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Yes, society would break down without trust, but why do you think trust is such a paramount value among humans?
                      Because of the interdependency we have with many (most?) other humans. Without a framework of trust, we are extremely limited in what we can do and the quality of our lives.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Could it be that humans are linguistic?
                      I see no reason to think "trust" is valued because we are linguistic - if that is what you are claiming.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      MY point was that there was an inherent logic and norm to language-use that lying violates.
                      There is a common valuing of trust that lying violates. We can betray trust by language OR action OR inaction.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Why is it that only infra-linguistic humans and animals are held morally unaccountable, and that language proficiency is the exact threshold at which moral culpability begins? Is that mere coincidence?
                      No, I don't think it is coincidence. Both are attributes of a particular level of sentience. When I am self-aware, and can reflect on my actions, I sort them. I am also aware of the actions of others, and sort those too. Language is a tool we developed to communicate with those others and express ideas and needs.
                      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
                        No - you haven't. You've identified an impact on society/communication when lies (or truth) become common. That is not a "moral" value. Someone who does not value either society or communication will see no moral value to "telling the truth." Case in point: Donald Trump - who not only lies regularly, but defends lying as justified if it serves the end of "winning" whatever it is he wants to win.
                        According to the argument. Iff the argument goes through. It was an extension of the argument. Your question-begging isn't based on any argument but a reflexive an unquestioning assumption that you're right. As in your tendency to see things merely in terms of societal impact. And you're ignoring, or failing to understand, the normative aspect of morality. Of course there will always be Donald Trumps and others who flout norms. This fact alone doesn't tell us anything about whether the norm that's been violated was moral or not. What I was arguing was that lying violates the internal logic of language. The liar is doing something that's self-contradictory and self-negating, like engaging in the Cretan paradox. He's undermining the very grounds that make what he's doing possible. That's why it's immoral, according to the argument. That proviso is why it's not begging the question. Make an argument and base your assumptions on that argument and you won't beg the question either.



                        It's not right - so we're not in the world of objective moral facts
                        Maybe not, but you have to argue for why we're not. Even if it's not right, it wouldn't be begging the question as you are wont to do.



                        Subjective morality addresses all of this, as I did in my previous post.
                        Sorry, but no you didn't.



                        I did. Several points, actually, most of which you did not respond to and simply declared you had pointed out an "objective moral truth."
                        According to the argument. I wasn't assuming I had succeeded. Try reading a little more carefully. And 'points' are not necessarily the same as 'arguments'.



                        There are many reasons one might value community. It might be a matter of upbringing. It might be indoctrinated as a religious precept. It might simply the the utilitarian observation of "safety in numbers" or the mutual benefit of neighbor helping neighbor. There is no one reason why any of us values any particular thing.
                        No ultimate reason for valuing anything?



                        Says who? You are assuming your conclusion here.
                        Uh, common sense? Maybe I shouldn't assume anything. Is every value of yours an instrumental value? You don't value anything for its own sake but only for the sake of something else it can get you, and so on ad infinitum?



                        No - nothing is "good in itself." Something is "good" as measured by "Metric X" by "Person Y." What is "good" to one may be (and commonly is) "bad" to another. You cannot cite a single example of a thing that is good without citing "as measured by whom" and "according to what metric?" It is these things that make such a value judgement subjective.
                        Neither of us know that for sure. From where do you derive your messianic certainty? There are so many conceptual/linguistic muddles here, I'm not sure where to start. I'll leave it for another post. But for starters, you're aware that these are all mere assertions, aren't you? You still haven't given any real reasons, evidence, arguments in favor of adopting your position. And you haven't answered my actual arguments against your position.



                        What does negotiation have to do with anything? I have many principles I will not negotiate on. That does not make them any less subjectively mine.
                        If a principle isn't negotiable, then it isn't necessarily just subjectively mine except trivially insofar as it is occurring in my mind, especially if objectivity is a part of the principle.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Your question introduces causality in a very odd way. We're talking about how one classifies actions (ought, ought not; moral, immoral). Your question is somewhat like asking "how do you know you have the causal direction right? How do you know horses are mammals because they bear living young and not that they bear living young because they are mammals?" We establish criteria for sorting animals into phyla, family, genus, etc. and then sort accordingly. Likewise, we establish criteria for sorting action into ought and ought not, and the sort accordingly.
                          We're talking about morality, not natural phenomena. Different classificatiosn don't 'cause' other classifications of living thiings, escept maybe in the history of biology. You were the one talking about causality. You were saying, in effect, Trump lies , his lies cause destructive effects on society, those destructive effects cause people to label those lies as 'morally wrong.' The property of "moral wrongness" for you is caused by or made up of destructive effects. For me, I think it's plausible the reverse is the case, that deontology is true and that there is something inherent in lying that is morally bad, and that this property would at least in part explain the destructive effects.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Jim - you have this pattern to your posts. I make an observation, and you say, "no it's not that way - and others would laugh." I frankly don't care who does or does not laugh. Language is a collection of symbols that represent some aspect of reality and exists so we can communicate in verbal and written form. One definition is "the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way," which is consistent with what I have said. Most other definitions are along a similar vein. A dictionary is the recording of those symbols and their meaning associations. If you think language is other than that - by all means feel free to define what you think language is. But the response you just made is a good example of what I mean when I say "you haven't made an argument."
                            It's also grammar, syntax, context, unspoken assumptions, non-verbal cues. Sometimes silence can speak volumes. It's often what's lost in translatiion. It's sentential, not just a string of symbols.



                            At no point did I claim we were - so I don't see the point of this sentence.
                            Sounded like you could have been describing a machine language.



                            No - there isn't. There is a "norm" of truth in how we expect others interacting with us to USE language in communicating. We expect communication to be done with truth, and are surprised if/when it is not. But truth is not endemic to language per se. Language can be used equally to lie or to tell the truth, and it is still "language."
                            No, that's not quite what I'm getting at. Language couldn't exist without an assumption of truth, a norm of truth that users are implicitly aiming at. Truth as a matter of fact is not endemic to language but it's a background assumption. Like I said, the concept of "lie" is meaningless outside the context of truth, but it is conceivable that there could be an alien species that never lies.



                            Without what? Truth?

                            "I have blond hair and weigh 165 pounds." Where is the "norm of truth" in this statement?
                            Yes, my point. Even if that isn't true, you're imagining or conceiving of a situation in which it were true. It's truth-dependent, even as nonsense verse, like Lewis Carroll's is.


                            I see no reason to think "trust" is valued because we are linguistic - if that is what you are claiming.
                            How is trust established? Through promises, sentences, etc? Even things like nods, waves, blinks, winks are all para-linguistic. I guess some kind of 'trust' could be established between human and dog, but a very limited kind...





                            No, I don't think it is coincidence. Both are attributes of a particular level of sentience. When I am self-aware, and can reflect on my actions, I sort them. I am also aware of the actions of others, and sort those too. Language is a tool we developed to communicate with those others and express ideas and needs.
                            I have to be able to think in terms of a principle, as in "I shouldn't take what isn't mine" "I shouldn't hit her" etc. I have to be able to form sentences. Sentence formation probably comes before full self-awareness and being able to sort very many kinds of actions. That probably comes a bit later.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                              I have to keep re-posting because of computer problems. This is getting really old!
                              If you're using a Chrome-based browser, use a form recovery extension like Typio Form Recovery. One click and you can restore all of your lost text. There's a similar extension for Firefox as well.

                              Comment


                              • Jim - I combined your three posts into this one response. We are also back into a long back/forth, and the original challenge has gone largely ignored. I do not see that you have made any argument that demonstrates an objective basis for specific moral frameworks (i.e., an objectively "morally true" framework we should all be aiming for).

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                According to the argument. Iff the argument goes through. It was an extension of the argument. Your question-begging isn't based on any argument but a reflexive an unquestioning assumption that you're right. As in your tendency to see things merely in terms of societal impact.
                                I don't. And the fact that you think I do tells me a great deal about how little you have actually understood what I've said.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                And you're ignoring, or failing to understand, the normative aspect of morality. Of course there will always be Donald Trumps and others who flout norms. This fact alone doesn't tell us anything about whether the norm that's been violated was moral or not.
                                There is nothing about subjective morality that precludes it operating normatively. As previously noted, any individually held moral position that is widely held by the members of a particular group/society becomes normative for that group.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                What I was arguing was that lying violates the internal logic of language. The liar is doing something that's self-contradictory and self-negating, like engaging in the Cretan paradox. He's undermining the very grounds that make what he's doing possible. That's why it's immoral, according to the argument. That proviso is why it's not begging the question. Make an argument and base your assumptions on that argument and you won't beg the question either.
                                I know you are arguing for some form of link between morality and language, but you have not made the case. You started by redefining what "language" is, asserted that people would laugh at my response (a response that was based on a quick pass through various definitions of the term "language"), ad then continued your assertion that the immorality of lying is based in this linquistic violation. THere is no argument here that I can respond to except to note that redefining your way to a position isn't usually considered all that constructive.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                Maybe not, but you have to argue for why we're not. Even if it's not right, it wouldn't be begging the question as you are wont to do.

                                Sorry, but no you didn't.

                                According to the argument. I wasn't assuming I had succeeded. Try reading a little more carefully. And 'points' are not necessarily the same as 'arguments'.

                                No ultimate reason for valuing anything?
                                Not that I have ever encountered. I know of no principle in morality that is "absolute."

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                Uh, common sense?
                                So now your argument should be accepted because it is "common sense?" It was once "common sense" that the sun revolved around the earth too. As I have previously noted, morality has been described in objective/absolute terms for centuries - perhaps since the dawn of man. That it is rooted in objective/absolute realities is as indoctrinated into people (i.e., cultures, language, norms) as the notion of a god. If an argument could be won by appealing to "common sense," widely held but false views would never be uncovered.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                Maybe I shouldn't assume anything.
                                Always good policy.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                Is every value of yours an instrumental value? You don't value anything for its own sake but only for the sake of something else it can get you, and so on ad infinitum?
                                Jim, when someone says "X has value," they are essentially saying, "I find value in X." It is always a statement made from the perspective of a valuer. The concept of a thing having value WITHOUT a valuer is indoctrinated nonsense.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                Neither of us know that for sure. From where do you derive your messianic certainty? There are so many conceptual/linguistic muddles here, I'm not sure where to start. I'll leave it for another post. But for starters, you're aware that these are all mere assertions, aren't you? You still haven't given any real reasons, evidence, arguments in favor of adopting your position. And you haven't answered my actual arguments against your position.
                                What I am aware of, Jim, is that I make these statements, and invite you to give me so much as a single example that will disprove my position, and you have yet to do so. So, again, find one thing that can be described as "good" without identifying a sentient being who is doing the evaluation and the metric being used to assess the thing as good. JUst one - and you will destroy my position. I know of none - hence my position.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                If a principle isn't negotiable, then it isn't necessarily just subjectively mine except trivially insofar as it is occurring in my mind, especially if objectivity is a part of the principle.
                                At no point did I claim "negotiation" or "lack of negotiation" in any way made something subjective OR objective. Frankly, I still don't see how "negotiation" has anything to do with whether a thing is subjective or objective, or why you introduced this principle.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                We're talking about morality, not natural phenomena. Different classificatiosn don't 'cause' other classifications of living thiings, escept maybe in the history of biology. You were the one talking about causality. You were saying, in effect, Trump lies, his lies cause destructive effects on society, those destructive effects cause people to label those lies as 'morally wrong.'
                                First, I am a human being within a natural order and my ability to reason is part of the natural order, so you would have a hard case trying to show that my ability to reason is not a "natural phenomena." Second, at no point did I say Trump's lying causes destructive effects on society and that is the basis for its immorality. The basis for it's immorality can be different for different people based on their valuing and resulting moral framework. For some it is not immoral at all. It is, as you say, "justified." BUt you are correct that an individual will tend to categorize actions that destroy/threaten/diminish something that is highly valued as "immoral" and actions that promote/protect/enhance something that is highly valued as "moral." Your argument that one cannot determine if the categorization causes the harm rather than the act is a very odd one. A categorization is not causal, AFAIK.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                The property of "moral wrongness" for you is caused by or made up of destructive effects.
                                It's not "made up" of destructive effects, Jim. It is (in part) the destructive effects of an act on soemthing we value that cause us to classify that act as "immoral." "Immoral" and "moral" are simple classes, like "mammal" and "reptile." The latter uses characteristics of living beings to assign them to categories. The latter uses the effects of actions to classify them into categories.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                For me, I think it's plausible the reverse is the case, that deontology is true and that there is something inherent in lying that is morally bad, and that this property would at least in part explain the destructive effects.
                                Then you are arguing that a classification can have a real world effect. It's an odd argument and I see no basis for it. But feel free to make the case if you wish.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                It's also grammar, syntax, context, unspoken assumptions, non-verbal cues. Sometimes silence can speak volumes. It's often what's lost in translatiion. It's sentential, not just a string of symbols.
                                Jim, I think you are conflating "communication" with "language." Yes, language is not only the symbols we use to express concepts, but also the rules concerning how those symols are assembled, so grammar and syntax are part of language. The rest of your list is not about "language." It's about communication. Language tells us the sentence "Give me a belt" is a correctly constructed English sentence. Context and non-verbal cues can tell me that I want a drink instead of something to hold up my pants instead of needing a good smack in the head. Communication involves language, non-verbal cues, unspoken assumptions, etc.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                Sounded like you could have been describing a machine language.
                                I'm describing ANY language. Even machine language is a collection of symbols to represent a specific reality. In the case of machine language, the symbols represent desired sequential states in the logic gates of a computer. As with human language, context is everything. A simple addition function can be used to total a bank balance, add two register addresses to arrive at a desired register address, determine an encryption key, or begin the process of arriving at an average pixel luminosity.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                No, that's not quite what I'm getting at. Language couldn't exist without an assumption of truth, a norm of truth that users are implicitly aiming at. Truth as a matter of fact is not endemic to language but it's a background assumption. Like I said, the concept of "lie" is meaningless outside the context of truth, but it is conceivable that there could be an alien species that never lies.
                                I know you've said it over and over again - and other than saying it - you've not made an argument or a case for it. I prepeat, there is no link between "truth" and "language." Language exists with or without truth. Language can be used to utter truths OR falsehoods. Language is one tool used by sentient beings to communicate. It is the symbolic tool that can be spoken or written. You have shown no link between "truth" and "language" other than to continually assert it exists, and conflate "language" with "communication."

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                Yes, my point. Even if that isn't true, you're imagining or conceiving of a situation in which it were true. It's truth-dependent, even as nonsense verse, like Lewis Carroll's is.
                                I'm sorry, Jim - but to borow a line from Seer, "you're not making any sense." My preference would be to say, "I cannot make one whit of sense out of what you are saying." It kay be I am simply not understanding you, but I cannot even begin to fathom what you are trying to argue here.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                How is trust established? Through promises, sentences, etc? Even things like nods, waves, blinks, winks are all para-linguistic. I guess some kind of 'trust' could be established between human and dog, but a very limited kind...
                                In my experience, trust tends to be our default position most of the time, until we have cause to NOT trust. Every day is filled with actions that expose our underlying trust in our fellow people. This is why a betrayal of trust impacts us so much. And trust can be destroyed (and re-affirmed) in only one way I know of: by having our actions align with our communicated intent, and our communications consistently accurately represent reality.

                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                I have to be able to think in terms of a principle, as in "I shouldn't take what isn't mine" "I shouldn't hit her" etc. I have to be able to form sentences. Sentence formation probably comes before full self-awareness and being able to sort very many kinds of actions. That probably comes a bit later.
                                You are proposing that a being can assemble a symbolic language before it is self-aware? I'm not sure of the relevance of this observation, but it seems to undermine your position that language presumes truth. We see languages in a wide variety of species that take many forms: the dance of the bee, the sounds of the humpback, and so forth. While the humpback may prove to be sentient, I don't think any of us believe the bee is sentient, or capable of moralizing.
                                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
                                505 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