Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Atheism And Moral Progress
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAnd how does that makes this being the source of an objective moral absolute?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 PostWhich would make it relative to their interpretation of what "best" is," and subjective to that religious group.
Relative to someone's definition of "best," making it subjective to that someone.
And would be relative and subjective to that individual and/or society.
So now we are relative to a society's interpretation of "peaceful" and what makes people happy - which is a subjective thing.
Except that what makes one person or society "happy" may not make another society or person "happy." And peaceful is also open to interpretation and varies from individual to individual. Does it mean stress-free? Without war? Without any conflict? Without disagreement?
Because that is how we define the terms:
Murder: an illicit or illegal killing.
Rape: an illicit or illegal sexual act.
So saying "murder is immoral" is the same as saying (by substitution), "illicit or illegal killing is immoral." See the problem? Now we have the problem of determining specifically which act of killing is "illicit" or "illegal."
Wait, wait - you are a moral realist who doesn't believe that morals are objective realities? How does THAT work?
Gods or your "social good." Morality is individual. It is rooted in the things that we individually value. Because we all share a great deal in common, we tend to value in common ways, so their is significant alignment in our moral frameworks. But there is essentially no such thing as a "social moral norm." What we consider "social moral norms" are nothing more than the moral positions that the majority of us (in a given society) hold in common. We tend to gather in societies that most align with our own moral framework. But if the individual perceives the group moral norm as "wrong," they will reject it in favor of their own. We see this all the time.Last edited by JimL; 07-30-2019, 08:56 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostReally? Since His moral character is immutable which would make that moral character absolute.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 JimL View PostNot necessarily carpe. A moral system can be in the best interests of people and of society even if people disagree. I think you are arguing your point under the mistaking idea that people always know what moral system best serves community. We don't, we evolve and we learn what works
No, because it isn't about some "one" persons definition of best, it is about the best interests of the whole of the community, regardless of what any one individual might believe.
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhat does subjective to society mean? A moral system that serves the best interests of a particular society is not dependent upon whether everyone agrees with it. Morals, rules of behavior in society, can be in ones best interests without them being aware of it, or agreeing with it.
Originally posted by JimL View PostAgain, it's about the best interests of the collective. Community is not about the individual except in so far as he/she is a member of the collective. We are talking about what moral system is in the best interests of the collective first, the individual second. That being the case the "best" moral system is objective.
Originally posted by JimL View PostMorals are rules of communal behavior, and the reason for them is so that we better get along, which does mean less stress, less war/fighting, less conflict etc etc. making for a more peaceful and happy existence as a group.
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut why is it immoral, why is it wrong? Saying it is wrong by definition doesn't define why it's wrong.
Murder: An illicit killing
Moral claim: Murder is illicit (i.e., wrong)
By substitution we get: An illicit killing is illicit.
This statement is true by definition. It is a tautology. It doesn't say anything. That is the point I am trying to make to you: when you say "murder is immoral" or "murder is wrong," you aren't actually saying anything. We already know that an illicit killing is illicit. So what the heck constitutes an "illicit killing" and what is it about that particular instance of killing that makes it illicit?
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell, you said they have no concept of owning property so no concept of theft. So, it would be silly to have a moral against it. But I don't think there is any such society where people have nothing they consider to be their own property.
Originally posted by JimL View PostI think therein lies the difficulty in our discussion. Morality in my opinion is not individual, it has to do with community. If we lived alone on an island as individuals, there would be no need of morals.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 PostWhich means this being's own moral framework doesn't change. Okay. But it is still relative and subjective to this being. How does this being's moral framework suddenly become binding on me?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 Tassman View PostExactly. So, your premise is based upon an unverified assumption.
It’s not another matter, it's the core of your argument. Without a demonstrably true premise, i.e. God’s existence, we cannot arrive at a true conclusion in a sound deductive argument.
It would provide “a coherent foundation for moral realism” if God existed, but we don’t know that. This is the point.
Correct. Science has no methodology to verify claims of supernatural entities such as gods.Last edited by Jim B.; 07-30-2019, 03:57 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhether it is binding on you is not the point (your choice), the point is, it is absolute.
Originally posted by seer View PostThe law of gravity is absolute on this earth, but you are free to jump off the Empire State building if you wish. The laws of logic are absolute, that doesn't stop you from being irrational. : )
And the laws of logic are indeed (presumably) absolute. So are the core principles of mathematics. These are good examples of absolutes, and they are "binding" on all of us in that we cannot escape their reality (though we might believe we have - as in being irrational).
But the moral frame work of an eternal, all-powerful being does not have such binding. You cannot get from "this being thinks X is immoral" to "you are obligated to have the same position."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 PostGranted - if there were such a thing as an eternal unchanging being, then presumably its moral framework would likewise be unchanging (by definition), rendering that moral framework "absolute" in a way that mortal being's frameworks cannot be. But you cannot show such a being to exist, and you do not escape that its moral framework is subjective to itself.
And the laws of logic are indeed (presumably) absolute. So are the core principles of mathematics. These are good examples of absolutes, and they are "binding" on all of us in that we cannot escape their reality (though we might believe we have - as in being irrational).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 PostImagine that I say, ""If it rains today, my lawn will get wet." I'm not making an 'unverified assumption.' I'm not assuming that it will rain today, only that the conjunction [rain+ lawn getting wet] will occur.
But that's like saying "Without a demonstrably true premise that it's going to rain today, we cannot arrive at a true conclusion that the lawn will get wet." It's a counterfactual argument, not a factual argument.
I'm saying something like: "In World G where a God of the omni's exists, that God would provide the most coherent possible foundation for morality." Whether or not we happen to live in World G is another matter.
Right, for the purposes of this argument, just like we don't know if it's going to rain today or not.
You're begging the question, of course, in assuming that science would be the final arbiter in all matters of knowledge, but then again, that's another matter.“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 Tassman View PostFalse analogy. The existence of rain is a verified fact, even if the prediction of when it might rain is not.
If a unicorn possessing x, y and z properties walked across my garden at time t1, I would be able to perceive certain evidence of that event. This is true whether or not the existence of unicorns is verifiable in our world. And it doesn't matter either if the entity in question is not empirical by third person criteria, like first person subjective experiences. As long as the object in question isn't self-contradictory, like a 'round square' or a 'married bachelor' then the counterfactual can work.
It’s not counterfactual because the fact of rain existing is not in doubt unlike the existence of a deity, which is in doubt.
Well yes. This is the point I’m making.
Scientific methodology is the only verifiable arbiter of knowledge. This as opposed to leap of faith.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThat doesn't matter. You're misunderstanding the point of the counterfactual.
If a unicorn possessing x, y and z properties walked across my garden at time t1, I would be able to perceive certain evidence of that event. This is true whether or not the existence of unicorns is verifiable in our world. And it doesn't matter either if the entity in question is not empirical by third person criteria, like first person subjective experiences. As long as the object in question isn't self-contradictory, like a 'round square' or a 'married bachelor' then the counterfactual can work.
It can work for whatever entity has a coherent definition and isn't internally contradictory. It can be a unicorn, fairies, Santa Claus, Big Foot, A Bleeb, etc.
I have already agreed that theism would be the most coherent foundation for moral realism if it could be established that it is based upon a verifiable foundation, namely the existence of a deity or deities. But it cannot, this is the point. It just remains a nice idea. Like unicorns.
I thought that was the point you were disagreeing with.(?)
That's a very dogmatic and extreme position. In philosophy, if you assert a position like that, it's strongly recommended to support it with argumentation. Without argumentation, it's just a circular statement of faith.“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 Tassman View PostWell yes. If kangaroos had no tails, they would fall over and if pigs had wings, they would fly. These are not internally contradictory definitions either but not very helpful in my view.
I have already agreed that theism would be the most coherent foundation for moral realism if it could be established that it is based upon a verifiable foundation, namely the existence of a deity or deities. But it cannot, this is the point. It just remains a nice idea. Like unicorns.
Maybe I’m confused. What I thought I was disagreeing with was the notion of counterfactuals as a useful tool.
Philosophy is a useful discipline and helpful in science by ensuring self-consistency and helping prevent errors of false inference. But philosophy does not, and cannot, verify facts and truths about nature. It can only expose and reformulate the truths contained in scientific models, theories and laws which are generated by empirical verification.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
590 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
137 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment