Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

Because I think that the God of the omni's would be a concrete instantiation of the good and of love.

And how does that makes this being the source of an objective moral absolute?

[seer]

And how does that makes this being the source of an objective moral absolute?

Really? Since His moral character is immutable which would make that moral character absolute.

[JimL]

Which would make it relative to their interpretation of what "best" is," and subjective to that religious group.

Not 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

Relative to someone's definition of "best," making it subjective to that someone.

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.

And would be relative and subjective to that individual and/or society.

What does subjective to society mean? A moral system that serves the best interests of a particular society is not dependent upon whether evryone 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.

So now we are relative to a society's interpretation of "peaceful" and what makes people happy - which is a subjective thing.

Again, 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.

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?

Morals 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.

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."

But why is it immoral, why is it wrong? Saying it is wrong by definition doesn't define why it's wrong.

Wait, wait - you are a moral realist who doesn't believe that morals are objective realities? How does THAT work?

Well, 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.

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.

I 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.

[carpedm9587]

Really? Since His moral character is immutable which would make that moral character absolute.

Which 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?

[carpedm9587]

Not 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.

JimL - you cannot make this work. You are trying to define "best" in some sort of absolute way, but there is no standard against which to make that assessment. You have decided "peace" and "happiness" are the best choice. Someone else may decide "wealth and comfort" are the "best" choice. Others may think "ecological sensitivity" is best. You have no absolute/objective framework against which to measure "best" that is not being selected by someone. Who gets to decide what is "best" for any given society or person?

What 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.

See above.

Again, 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.

See above. You make the same error over and over again.

Morals 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.

Which is what YOU want to optimize. It is what YOU have decided is "best." HOw can you possibly define an objective and absolute "best?" "Best" is a value judgement. It requires a valuer. By definition, it will be subjective to that valuer.

But why is it immoral, why is it wrong? Saying it is wrong by definition doesn't define why it's wrong.

That is my point, JimL. Look, this is simple linguistics.

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?

Well, 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.

This actually happens in some small communes, and a few ancient tribes. And it shows the point I am trying to make: moral precepts are not absolutes and objectively true: they are relative and subjective. Some moral statements we take as absolutes and objectively true don't even exist in some cultures. How can a thing be absolute and objectively true when it doesn't apply everywhere?

I 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.

I know that is your opinion, Jim. I'm trying to get you to see that you are holding an opinion/idea you cannot support consistently, and it cannot be logically supported. You are trying to build an absolute moral framework and show it to be objective and all of your foundations are relative/subjective. It just doesn't work.

[seer]

Which 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?

Whether it is binding on you is not the point (your choice), the point is, it is absolute. The 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. : )

[Jim B.]

Exactly. So, your premise is based upon an unverified assumption.

Imagine 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.

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.

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.

It would provide “a coherent foundation for moral realism” if God existed, but we don’t know that. This is the point.

Right, for the purposes of this argument, just like we don't know if it's going to rain today or not.

Correct. Science has no methodology to verify claims of supernatural entities such as gods.

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.

[Jim B.]

And how does that makes this being the source of an objective moral absolute?

I didn't say God would necessarily be the source. And I don't subscribe to moral absolutism.

[carpedm9587]

Whether it is binding on you is not the point (your choice), the point is, it is absolute.

Granted - 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.

The 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. : )

"absolute on this earth" seems to me to be an oxymoron. As soon as you qualify an absolute in space and/or time, it is no longer "absolute" in the sense that term is typically used in this context, making this a poor analogy.

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."

[seer]

Granted - 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.

But so what? I was answering your point about being absolute. I'm glad we agree.

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).

Right, just as you can not escape God's absolute moral character. The law of God holds complete authority over you, and you can not escape that reality.

[Tassman]

Really? Since His moral character is immutable which would make that moral character absolute.

IF he existed.

[Tassman]

Imagine 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.

False analogy. The existence of rain is a verified fact, even if the prediction of when it might rain is not.

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.

It’s not counterfactual because the fact of rain existing is not in doubt unlike the existence of a deity, which is in doubt.

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.

Well yes. This is the point I’m making.

Right, for the purposes of this argument, just like we don't know if it's going to rain today or not.

See above.

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.

Scientific methodology is the only verifiable arbiter of knowledge. This as opposed to leap of faith.

[Jim B.]

False analogy. The existence of rain is a verified fact, even if the prediction of when it might rain is not.

That 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’s not counterfactual because the fact of rain existing is not in doubt unlike the existence of a deity, which is in doubt.

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.

Well yes. This is the point I’m making.

I thought that was the point you were disagreeing with.(?)

Scientific methodology is the only verifiable arbiter of knowledge. This as opposed to leap of faith.

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.

[Tassman]

That 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.

Well 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.

I thought that was the point you were disagreeing with.(?)

Maybe I’m confused. What I thought I was disagreeing with was the notion of counterfactuals as a useful tool.

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.

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.

[Jim B.]

Well 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.

Yes, if it could be established, which was the conditional going in, so we're back to square one. This is a "Philosophy" forum after all, which is, among other things, about 'conceptual analysis.' Maybe you're on the wrong forum (?) Maybe you're thorough-going literal-mindedness is more suited to a strictly scientific venue.

Maybe I’m confused. What I thought I was disagreeing with was the notion of counterfactuals as a useful tool.

As a useful tool for what?

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.

That's a very narrow and constricted and frankly 'science-centric' conception of what philosophy is, imo.