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
    Jim what I find interesting is that honesty is a necessary condition for any kind of legitimate moralizing. I'm sure Carp would agree, but that would mean that an objective moral standard (honesty) is key and necessary. Do I have that wrong?
    I agree, and that goes back to Cuneo's argument that I linked to earlier in the youtube video. I guess Carp would try to argue that there's no objective moral standard for honesty but only what we intersubjectively agree to based on what we each subjectively "value/cherish."

    Comment


    • :)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        Unfortunately for him (if that is what he is doing), his explanation doesn't work, since what is or is not moral is something I determine for myself. The individual always has primacy. If you think otherwise, ask yourself what your response would be if someone suggested to you that X is moral and you believe it to be immoral. Unless they made an argument that influenced you to alter your position - you would insist on holding your moral stance. It's what we all do.

        That argument will necessarily be rooted in trying to link the moral position to something you value/cherish.
        Just because someone might confuse a thing, or an act, to be moral based doesn't mean that it is. Your personal belief that a thing is either right or wrong isn't what makes it morality based. Morality is a social construct not a personal opinion about everything under the sun. You can and do determine what is right or wrong concerning everything you do, and so do others do the same, but unless you live in community with one another it's only opinion, not what we would consider to be a moral law.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          This is one section from Michael Huemer's "Moral Objectivism"
          This seems to follow:

          If your 'meta-theory' consists in the denial of the existence of any subject matter for your theory, how can you continue to have a theory? Suppose that it were claimed that chemicals have no objective existence: can anybody imagine that the adoption of this belief would have no effect on the science of chemistry? Obviously, the entire science would be undermined. By analogy, if someone says that values have no objective existence, moral philosophy is undermined since it has no subject matter. It is then comparable to the study of unicorns. Nothing positive you say about unicorns can be true since there aren't any unicorns. And it makes no sense to say, "Well, I agree that unicorns are not real, but I still think this is a unicorn." How is it any different to say, "Well, I agree that values aren't real, but I still think this is a value"?

          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
            This seems to follow:

            If your 'meta-theory' consists in the denial of the existence of any subject matter for your theory, how can you continue to have a theory? Suppose that it were claimed that chemicals have no objective existence: can anybody imagine that the adoption of this belief would have no effect on the science of chemistry? Obviously, the entire science would be undermined. By analogy, if someone says that values have no objective existence, moral philosophy is undermined since it has no subject matter. It is then comparable to the study of unicorns. Nothing positive you say about unicorns can be true since there aren't any unicorns. And it makes no sense to say, "Well, I agree that unicorns are not real, but I still think this is a unicorn." How is it any different to say, "Well, I agree that values aren't real, but I still think this is a value"?

            They, morals, what we as a society define as morals, are a value to us as society, even though they have no ultimate objective existence in and of themselves.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Not sure what you are asking. I'm simply suggesting that you haven't, IMO, provided adequate justification for abandoning the language of morality on the basis of individual vs. society. Ergo, I see no reason for abandoning it.
              My question was that IF the behavioral mores of one isolated individual are opposite to the behavioral mores of another isolated individual elsewhere, which of the two sets of contrasting behavior constitute “moral” behavior and why?

              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              As I was reading this response, it dawned on me that Tass and Seer are both wrong about the highlighted line (highlights added by me). Tass captures the reason later in the line. As living creatures on this planet, humans are part of nature - and we most certainly care whether or not we survive. Indeed, most living creatures have a drive, conscious or unconscious or instinctual, to survive. So, in a sense, nature DOES care if we survive - because WE do, and we are part of "nature."

              Just a thought...
              Yes, agreed. The problem is that seer attempts to turn this argument into one of nature itself having agency. Like a sort of demigod, who has “intent” and "cares" whether or not we survive.
              Last edited by Tassman; 09-20-2019, 12:30 AM.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Not is not irrelevant in this context, perhaps some people value other things over what the index measures. It is ALL subjective Tass, and always will be.
                The indices regarding The World Happiness Report and The Human Development Index are designed to minimize such discrepancies.

                Again, in your morally relative world there are no objective moral goals, nor can there be. And you trying to make is so doesn't make it so.
                And in YOUR world also. The evolving social values of the day are what guide community morality. YOUR so-called “objective moral goals” have changed over time according to these social values. And scriptural texts have been selected accordingly to support them. Slavery is one example of evolving “objective morality”, as was the subjugation of women until relatively recently.

                Yes there is change - like the increasing rise of Islam worldwide especially in Europe. Yes, there will be a lot of change in Europe in 50 years, never mind the increasing power of Communist China.
                Exactly. There is demonstrable, ongoing moral “change” in our world and there has been throughout human history.

                Well it was not my denomination, or most denominations here in New England.
                Yeah right: “it wasn’t me, it’s them others.”

                There were sufficient Christians who supported slavery in the US, to necessitate a civil war to end the practice. And it took the Civil Rights Act, to enforce equal rights for blacks and the rest of the population.

                So why do things like slavery or genocide bother you since they are perfectly natural acts? Why does nature upset you?
                The social mores of our current society value ALL human life equally. Hence “slavery or genocide” are considered an abomination. For more primitive tribal societies this was not the case (e.g. Moses and the Israelite's), but, as you acknowledge above, social values “change” over time.

                So what if we care? How are we any more worthy of life than all the species that went extinct in the past?
                We are NOT “more worthy of life than all the species that went extinct in the past”. But we instinctively care whether we survive or not…as do all living creatures.

                Yep, I don't think the Christian baker should be forced to participate in a gay wedding.
                So, you are claiming the right to discriminate against those you dislike on the basis of personal prejudice.

                Until they go instinct.
                But, prior to extinction, creatures try to survive. It’s instinctive.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Unless you intend suicide. But I was speaking of the laws of nature that created us - they care nothing for our survival nor do they intend that we do survive.
                  The "laws of nature" did not create me. My parents created me. The laws of nature are simply a description of the how the universe in which they live operates. I'm pretty sure my parents intended that I survive. Dad has passed, so he no longer does. Mom certainly does.

                  In general, "laws" and "concepts" and "principles" are neither sentient nor sapient. It's a little odd to speak of them as if they could be.

                  I have to admit, I have no idea what it is you are trying to show/prove. I am clearly part of nature. I have intention. Therefore nature, at least in part, is capable of intention. So long as there is sapient life, "intention" will be part of nature.
                  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
                    The "laws of nature" did not create me. My parents created me. The laws of nature are simply a description of the how the universe in which they live operates. I'm pretty sure my parents intended that I survive. Dad has passed, so he no longer does. Mom certainly does.
                    Yes Carp, your parents created you via the laws of nature, those are the driving force for biology. Bacteria don't intend that they survive.

                    In general, "laws" and "concepts" and "principles" are neither sentient nor sapient. It's a little odd to speak of them as if they could be.

                    I have to admit, I have no idea what it is you are trying to show/prove. I am clearly part of nature. I have intention. Therefore nature, at least in part, is capable of intention. So long as there is sapient life, "intention" will be part of nature.
                    My point to Tass what that the laws of nature to not aim for our survival, the survival of our species. We get lucky or we don't.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      This is one section from Michael Huemer's "Moral Objectivism"
                      Since rational judgement presupposes some ground apart from the judgement on which for it to be based, the denial of objectivism implies the intrinsic impossibility of rational moral judgement,since said denial means that moral values cannot have any independent existence apart from the mind.


                      Huemer's error is in his first sentence, and involves two things. First, he is assuming that morality exists apart from the mind. That is pretty much the entire point: morality is strictly a function of the mind. It does not have an independent reality separate from sapient minds. No one has ever shown morality to have such a separate existence - it is merely assumed. Moral principles are not "out there to be found" but rather "in here to be defined." The only moral principles that are "out there to be found" are the generalized principles that govern the operation of societies - but those principles are nothing more than the collective principles of the members of that society, typically as expressed by the majority. When a principle is very widely held (i.e., prohibitions against random killing or forced sexual activity), those who do not agree are seen as outliers and generally shunned in one form or another. When the moral principle is NOT widely held, but held by a substantial part of the society, the society is in conflict and there is no clear "social moral principle."

                      Heumer makes another error in that very first sentence: he assumes "rational judgement" requires objective premises, thereby assuming his conclusion. Rationality is not limited to objective premises. Rational arguments are arguments that are valid and sound. A valid argument takes the form:

                      P1) If a then b
                      P2) a
                      C) Therefore b

                      The conclusion of a valid argument is true if the premises are true. A valid argument with true premises is called a sound argument. You will find this definition in pretty much every Logic 101 textbook. Notice that the definition says nothing about the premises of a sound argument being objectively true. They merely must be true.

                      P1) If that restaurant services pizza, I want to eat there
                      P2) That restaurant serves pizza
                      C) I want to eat there.

                      Perfectly valid structure, and the conclusion is true if P1 and P2 are true. P2 is objectively true, P1 is subjectively true. Perfectly rational. We make decisions like this all the time. Rationality is not constrained to the world of the objectively true. However, there is a constraint here: there is no mechanism I know of by which a subjectively true premise can be PROVEN to be true by rational means. We are dependent on the report of the subject in question.

                      At the end of the day, morality is a specific form of preference. Each of us roots our morality in a variety of things. Personal experience is key, but it includes experiences of society, religion, family, local community, friends, neighbors, colleagues, etc. We are influenced by these sources via personal contact, social media, media in general, education systems, books, movies, etc. But morality is rooted in the individual, and the individual always has primacy. Short of some form of mind-control (which strips an individual of moral agency, negating the concept of morality completely), there is no means by which one individual can impose or force their moral agency on another because morality is a function of the mind. We can and do control behavior - but not the underlying moral principles. At best we can attempt to influence them, and will be more or less successful depending on a variety of circumstances.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        The indices regarding The World Happiness Report and The Human Development Index are designed to minimize such discrepancies.
                        That doesn't make sense, you are just using the fallacy an appeal to the majority. That because the majority believes A makes them happy, then A is good. And the fact that A does not make everyone happy.


                        And in YOUR world also. The evolving social values of the day are what guide community morality. YOUR so-called “objective moral goals” have changed over time according to these social values. And scriptural texts have been selected accordingly to support them. Slavery is one example of evolving “objective morality”, as was the subjugation of women until relatively recently.
                        Nonsense Tass, first my moral beliefs are the same as I find in the New Testament. Second, in my world there is the possibility of finding objective moral truth in your world that possibility does not exist.


                        Exactly. There is demonstrable, ongoing moral “change” in our world and there has been throughout human history.
                        Right, and Europe under sharia law is objectively no better or worse than liberal democracy.

                        Yeah right: “it wasn’t me, it’s them others.”
                        No it is a fact Tass, look at the abolition movement in New England - the Churches were the driving force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism


                        There were sufficient Christians who supported slavery in the US, to necessitate a civil war to end the practice. And it took the Civil Rights Act, to enforce equal rights for blacks and the rest of the population.
                        Right, the country was split, as were the churches. You just conveniently leave out all the Christians who were against slavery. Bad form...


                        The social mores of our current society value ALL human life equally. Hence “slavery or genocide” are considered an abomination. For more primitive tribal societies this was not the case (e.g. Moses and the Israelite's), but, as you acknowledge above, social values “change” over time.
                        That is just silly, some western countries believe that, yet slavery is growing world wide and genocide still happens - just ask the Tutsi.

                        We are NOT “more worthy of life than all the species that went extinct in the past”. But we instinctively care whether we survive or not…as do all living creatures.
                        I'm not sure how you know a house fly cares about his survival. Did he tell you?

                        So, you are claiming the right to discriminate against those you dislike on the basis of personal prejudice.
                        I'm saying the government has no right to force a man to violate his religious beliefs.
                        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
                          Heumer makes another error in that very first sentence: he assumes "rational judgement" requires objective premises, thereby assuming his conclusion. Rationality is not limited to objective premises. Rational arguments are arguments that are valid and sound. A valid argument takes the form:

                          P1) If a then b
                          P2) a
                          C) Therefore b

                          The conclusion of a valid argument is true if the premises are true. A valid argument with true premises is called a sound argument. You will find this definition in pretty much every Logic 101 textbook. Notice that the definition says nothing about the premises of a sound argument being objectively true. They merely must be true.


                          P1) If that restaurant services pizza, I want to eat there
                          P2) That restaurant serves pizza
                          C) I want to eat there.

                          Perfectly valid structure, and the conclusion is true if P1 and P2 are true. P2 is objectively true, P1 is subjectively true. Perfectly rational. We make decisions like this all the time. Rationality is not constrained to the world of the objectively true. However, there is a constraint here: there is no mechanism I know of by which a subjectively true premise can be PROVEN to be true by rational means. We are dependent on the report of the subject in question.

                          At the end of the day, morality is a specific form of preference. Each of us roots our morality in a variety of things. Personal experience is key, but it includes experiences of society, religion, family, local community, friends, neighbors, colleagues, etc. We are influenced by these sources via personal contact, social media, media in general, education systems, books, movies, etc. But morality is rooted in the individual, and the individual always has primacy. Short of some form of mind-control (which strips an individual of moral agency, negating the concept of morality completely), there is no means by which one individual can impose or force their moral agency on another because morality is a function of the mind. We can and do control behavior - but not the underlying moral principles. At best we can attempt to influence them, and will be more or less successful depending on a variety of circumstances.

                          Carp, I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with here:


                          By analogy, if someone says that values have no objective existence, moral philosophy is undermined since it has no subject matter. It is then comparable to the study of unicorns. Nothing positive you say about unicorns can be true since there aren't any unicorns. And it makes no sense to say, "Well, I agree that unicorns are not real, but I still think this is a unicorn." How is it any different to say, "Well, I agree that values aren't real, but I still think this is a value"?

                          Even with your pizza example you are still pointing to the objective existence of pizza. It would be strange if you showed a preference for pizza when pizza did not objectively exist.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Carp, I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with here:


                            By analogy, if someone says that values have no objective existence, moral philosophy is undermined since it has no subject matter. It is then comparable to the study of unicorns. Nothing positive you say about unicorns can be true since there aren't any unicorns. And it makes no sense to say, "Well, I agree that unicorns are not real, but I still think this is a unicorn." How is it any different to say, "Well, I agree that values aren't real, but I still think this is a value"?

                            Even with your pizza example you are still pointing to the objective existence of pizza. It would be strange if you showed a preference for pizza when pizza did not objectively exist.
                            Again - you are assuming your conclusion. A thing does not cease to exist because it is subjective. My love of pizza exists - but it exists subjectively in me. The concept of a unicorn also exists, as an idea in a mind. The unicorn does not exist objectively - it does not have an existence separate from the mind. Likewise, morality does not have an existence separate from "mind."

                            As for the pizza - you are conflating the object of my liking with the liking itself, hence your confusion.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-20-2019, 08:42 AM.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              Again - you are assuming your conclusion. A thing does not cease to exist because it is subjective. My love of pizza exists - but it exists subjectively in me. The concept of a unicorn also exists, as an idea in a mind. The unicorn does not exist objectively - it does not have an existence separate from the mind. Likewise, morality does not have an existence separate from "mind."

                              As for the pizza - you are conflating the object of my liking with the liking itself, hence your confusion.
                              So like with the unicorn when you speak of values you are speaking of something that doesn't exist. There is no subject matter as Heumer states...
                              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
                                So like with the unicorn when you speak of values you are speaking of something that doesn't exist. There is no subject matter as Heumer states...
                                Morals don't exist in and of themselves, or as if they are existing things emanating from a source, they are indeterminate laws and the source of them is ourselves by way of reason.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

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