Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Homophobic Trump...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI suck at latin."Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostChrawnus - assuming you (like Seer and Sparko) base your moral framework on the bible and "god's word," then you have a moral preference for the precepts of the bible. It is entirely subjective to you. Had you been born in the Middle East you would likely have been quoting the Quran instead. We all have moral preferences. I prefer to call it what it is. We see our moral preferences as obligations on our actions, but they are derived internally based on external stimuli. Serr and Sparko have a preference to see homosexuality as sinful. They have that preference because they base their moral framework on the text of the bible (as they interpret it). Your attempt to define your way to an objection is simply not apt. Triangles are physical and/or geometric realities with a particular definition.
I don't see that as solving your problem. Laws place upon us obligations. That does not make the legal system "absolute/objective." Obligations are about the limits we accept from others or impose on ourselves. I have an obligation to pay my taxes because I choose to live in this country. That does not make the tax laws objective/absolute. I have a sense of obligation to provide for my family. That obligation does not arise from some absolute/objective source. It arises from a combination of the laws of this and, and the things I was raised to (and have come to) value. It springs internally.
It is both. Ultimately, what we value is (at least in part) subjectively arrived at. I can give my reasons for valuing life - but eventually I will get to the subjective experience of living and how I feel about it. There is no escaping that all moral reasoning ultimately traces to subjective roots.
Exactly. "Valuing," by definition, requires a valuer. It is a subjective act. There is no value if there is no one and nothing there to perceive that value.
The world is used to using "moral" to talk about how we determine "right or ought action" from "wrong or ought not action." "Preference framework" is not wrong. It's merely too wide. Thge moral framework is a subset of our overall preference framework.
When I said "Morality is inherently about obligations" I'm not speaking about the kind of obligations that the law places on us for example. Moral obligations are the kind of obligations that exists regardless of the culture and legal framework we live in. I would say that what you call "moral preferences derived internally based on external stimuli" and the sense of right and wrong that we call a "conscience" are an indication of these moral obligations, you simply don't believe that's what they are because in your worldview arriving at objective/absolute moral obligations is simply not possible. You've already determined from the get go that subjective values are all that exists, and therefore there is no possible way to argue for the existence of absolute moral obligations with you.
You're doing something similar to what you're accusing Sparko and seer of doing, only instead of making the bible the center of your valuing you're making yourself and your own worldview the center. It's about as likely for you to change your views than it is for someone who bases their worldview on the bible.
I think I'm going to bow out of the discussion here. It seems clear to me that our disagreements lay deeper than simply whether or not morality is objective or subjective, but we also seem to have disagreements about when something is sufficiently well-reasoned. Trying to unravel how far back our disagreements go exactly would take more energy than I care to spare right now, so I'll go back to simply reading the posts in this thread, for the time being.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostWell, if someone is thirsty and you offer them salt instead of water and I point out that salt will not solve the problem because the person needs water would you then say: "That is not an argument - it's a restatement of the meaning of the terms." It is rather simple. Your idea that you can continually point to it being a "restatement of the meaing of terms" and go on to say "So what?" is based on the idea that the meaning of terms is not important to the case discussed. You have completely failed to show why it is not important. If you did not in any way try to argue that certain actions are better or worse than others, you could say "So what?". What you are actually saying "So what?" to so far are all the ideas you present yourself. Or you are allowing me to say exactly that to every argument you can come up with. So what? You are simply presenting an idea while claiming that I have no reason what so ever to agree with you, unless I happen to do so already.
The idea that philosophers "start by simply assuming an absolute/objective base for moralizing" seems to be yet another question begging idea about moral reasoning. Where is the evidence?
The point that you seemed to find a bit contradicting was the point that there could be moral standards that are objective on how humans should treat each other. The fact that such standards would not apply when humans cease to exist would not prove them to be subjective. It would only prove that the reality in which they apply no longer exists.
If your best argument is that those who oppose you point out to what words actually mean and you cannot show them why that meaning is not important I don't think you have a very strong case.
I will admit that pointing to what objective standards are, why and how is very difficult and if you want to point out that I am not doing so in this post or the previous, you are absolutely right. That would be another thread and it would take a lot of time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostWhen I said "Morality is inherently about obligations" I'm not speaking about the kind of obligations that the law places on us for example. Moral obligations are the kind of obligations that exists regardless of the culture and legal framework we live in. I would say that what you call "moral preferences derived internally based on external stimuli" and the sense of right and wrong that we call a "conscience" are an indication of these moral obligations, you simply don't believe that's what they are because in your worldview arriving at objective/absolute moral obligations is simply not possible. You've already determined from the get go that subjective values are all that exists, and therefore there is no possible way to argue for the existence of absolute moral obligations with you.
You're doing something similar to what you're accusing Sparko and seer of doing, only instead of making the bible the center of your valuing you're making yourself and your own worldview the center. It's about as likely for you to change your views than it is for someone who bases their worldview on the bible.
I think I'm going to bow out of the discussion here. It seems clear to me that our disagreements lay deeper than simply whether or not morality is objective or subjective, but we also seem to have disagreements about when something is sufficiently well-reasoned. Trying to unravel how far back our disagreements go exactly would take more energy than I care to spare right now, so I'll go back to simply reading the posts in this thread, for the time being."Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.
Comment
-
Last edited by seer; 03-16-2019, 01:56 PM.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 Chrawnus View PostYou're doing something similar to what you're accusing Sparko and seer of doing, only instead of making the bible the center of your valuing you're making yourself and your own worldview the center. It's about as likely for you to change your views than it is for someone who bases their worldview on the bible.
.
I made that point to him earlier. He is basically replacing God with himself. He is making himself god and the source of morality that he believes everyone should follow. Then when questioned he comes up with some made-up rationalization to justify his moral view.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostFor Carp and all. Jonathan Haidt has done, and references, much research on this very subject. It directly ties in with Carp's claim of rationality. A must watch...
Jonathan Haidt
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI think this is one of the few times I've actually amen'd a post by someone who's worldview is diametrically opposed to mine on these forums. That doesn't happen often."Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostAnd I wrote almost the same about your post at the same time. Interesting. I am not sure our worldviews are diametrically opposed, however.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostYou need to fix the link seer, it just says "http://jonathan%20haidt/" and doesn't take you anywhere.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 Chrawnus View PostIn my worldview, almost everything, from the existence of matter, space and time, the basis of morality and the validity of reason are all tied to the existence of God. You be the judge if that makes our worldviews "diametrically" opposed or not."Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostEverything, unless you're content with building a moral framework out of thin air. But as far as I can tell you seem to have no problem doing that.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIt might be inconsistent, but why is acting inconsistently with your own values worse than acting in accordance with them?
The very idea seems ludicrous on the face of it. If I value something - then I will implicitly see actions that protect/enhance what I value as "better" than actions that destroy or diminish it. If that requires explanation...I am at a loss as to how to help you.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostA person who values his existence but decides to take his own life on some strange random impulse might have acted against his own values, but in your worldview you're unable to explain why either choice, snuffing out his own existence, or continuing it, was preferable to one or the other.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostYou might just introduce another set of subjective values to support the values you used to argue that existence is preferrable to non-existence, but then we're back at the "pushing the problem one step backwards" part again.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostYou're arguing that using reasoning to arrive at moral conclusions is preferrable to getting your moral beliefs "from the book", or by "following the herd" because when you're using reasoning you can get from,
1) Attempt to influence the underlying valuing so they align (these may be done by rational arguments, emotional arguments, social arguments, etc. to 2) When the underlying valuing aligns, use reason to arrive at a common moral conclusion.
Something which you cannot do when you get your morals "from the book", or "the herd."
I have two immediate thoughts popping up in my head right now. One is (and I think you suspect what it is already, even before reading it), I don't see how to justify being able to move from 1) to 2) in a worldview with subjective values, it just seems to be a case of "because I said so", in which case you're no better of than the people who build their moral frameworks based on the bible, or based on the "herd" they're following. You've simply pushed the point of contention backwards a step and exchanged "because the bible says so", or "because other people say so" to "because I say so".
Yet there is no cohesion among the followers of this books (which is conveniently blamed on "sin") and the book does label anyone who actually dares to disagree as "following their own wisdom and vain" (which I'd probably write in my holy book if I wanted everyone to follow it too. We have irrationality piled on irrationality, and somehow you think simply recognizing that humanity engages in a relative/subjectie act when it moralizes is somehow an odd thought?
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostMy other thought is that I don't see how at least the people who get their morals "from the book" cannot use reasoning to arrive at moral conclusions. True, they might be constrained by what the book says, and might not be able to speculate as wildly as someone who's not bound by the book, but there is nothing that says that they cannot use their reasoning to inform their reading of the book they adhere to, and what sort of principles, values and rules that they extract from it.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post"Speaking out of absolute/objective norms" and "repeating the dictates of an ancient book" (leaving out the "projected on a supreme being to lend it authority" part because that's something I have my doubts about whether you're going to be able to justify) are not necessarily in contradiction with each other. It's possible that they are "speaking out absolute/objective moral norms from the dictates of an ancient book" as well.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 seer View PostSo you are saying that there are objectively better moral ends or goals, like the objectively better ends when exercising?
Originally posted by seer View PostRight you are using a post hoc rationalization again. The point is one does not need a logical justification to value his life, it is completely unnecessary.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd any justification that jumps off of that is merely, again, post hoc reasoning. Reading back into the non-rational, emotive valuing of one's life.
Originally posted by seer View PostYou are again giving me a subjective reason, I asked for an objective grounding.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd how do you know that your subjective brain is coming to correct absolute/objective moral conclusions? Without begging the question?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 little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
6 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 08:38 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
42 responses
231 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:53 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
24 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 02:40 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
32 responses
176 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 08:22 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
73 responses
310 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:51 AM |
Comment