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
    Well to be honest Carp, I never found your arguments against universal moral truths to be compelling.
    I am not sure if my reaction is "I'm not surprised" or "I doubt it."
    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
      Why does that burden fall on me alone? Can you make a clear and concise argument for your position, or Carp for his? (I happen to know he can't.)
      My position is that there are universal moral truths via the law of God. And yes I can make a concise argument: God exists, He is a moral being, His moral character is immutable, His moral commands proceed from that character. He is a universal being hence His moral commands are universal. And by reason of His position (being God and creator) He has the inherent authority to command and require obedience.



      So the point is we're justified in believing those things regardless. We don't need clear and concise knock-down deductive arguments to have jusitifiable beliefs.
      I actually agree, but I have debated a number of moral realists over the years Jim, and I have yet to see decent argument. Perhaps you can present one?
      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 Adrift View Post
        Is his nature his mind, or is he a mind with a nature? God is eternal. That's part of his nature, but his eternality does not proceed from his mind. God is immutable, but his immutability does not proceed from his mind. He doesn't will himself to be immutable, he simply is immutable. Incorporeal, omnipresent, omniscient. These, like moral goodness, do not proceed from his mind, they are essential elements of his being.
        OK, I think I get it. But wouldn't His commands still be subjective to Him, even if His good nature is objective? In any case I can see how His goodness could be objective like His other attributes.
        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 Post
          ...or to the slave-owners, the Crusaders, the Conquistadors and other colonial powers that virtually wiped out the indigenous cultures of Native Americans and Australian Aborigine not to mention the millions that were killed during the Crusades and the European wars of religion. Gods can be just as murderous as any other ideological beliefs.
          Right, so what is your point?

          Because we have evolved as social animals that need to live in community in order to survive. It is in our own self-interest to subordinate our selfish desires to the best interests of society as a whole.
          Again, why is it rational to deny your selfish desires or wishes? Stalin and Mao lived in society, they just controlled it. Alpha males as evolution designed it.
          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
            I am not sure if my reaction is "I'm not surprised" or "I doubt it."
            Carp your main argument seems to be that because there is moral disagreement, that we have personal moral opinions, therefore universal or objective moral truths don't exist. That is not compelling, that is why I used the analogy of color. The color blue would still be an objective fact or reality in nature even if all creatures were born color blind. Our grasp of universal truths, or lack thereof, does not tell us much.
            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
              Did it matter to the Communist, Nazi or Hutu?
              Yes, people living in communist countries etc., are no less moral than are you. That's not to say that there aren't sociopaths in the world who might, by hook or by crook, rise to power like a Trump.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Yes, people living in communist countries etc., are no less moral than are you. That's not to say that there aren't sociopaths in the world who might, by hook or by crook, rise to power like a Trump.
                So what exactly is wrong with what the Communists did? They created social order, mostly through murder, and they have maintained social order through fear and power like China today.
                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 your main argument seems to be that because there is moral disagreement, that we have personal moral opinions, therefore universal or objective moral truths don't exist.
                  No. I have NEVER made that argument. It has nothing to do with what I have been saying, and the fact that you think it does speaks volumes for your attention-paying. I have actually, explicitly, noted that that is NOT my argument multiple times now. That's essentially what happens, Seer, when you delete the portions of my responses that you either cannot or will not respond to, and then simply repeat the same questions over and over again ad infinitum. As I have noted before, "tenacity" is not a substitute for solid argumentation.

                  You're in a rut, Seer. You have your canned responses to the "moral subjectivist," and you lob them indiscriminately without paying attention to the arguments actually being made, apparently blind to their inadequacies.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  That is not compelling, that is why I used the analogy of color. The color blue would still be an objective fact or reality in nature even if all creatures were born color blind. Our grasp of universal truths, or lack thereof, does not tell us much.
                  Your response is noted - and pretty much as misguided as the first part of your post. When/if you are ever actually open to discussing what I actually think, instead of the strawmen you continually create, let me know.
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-10-2019, 09:20 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
                    No. I have NEVER made that argument. It has nothing to do with what I have been saying, and the fact that you think it does speaks volumes for your attention-paying. That's essentially what happens, Seer, when you delete the portions of my responses that you either cannot or will not respond to, and then simply repeat the same questions over and over again ad infinitum. As I have noted before, "tenacity" is not a substitute for solid argumentation.
                    OK, so you are not arguing against universal or objective moral truths? Really? Then what exactly are you arguing?
                    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
                      OK, so you are not arguing against universal or objective moral truths? Really? Then what exactly are you arguing?
                      Wow..

                      How on earth did you get to THAT conclusion from what I posted? I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote.
                      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
                        Wow..

                        How on earth did you get to THAT conclusion from what I posted? I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote.
                        Well Carp, did you ever think the problem may be with you? You have a tendency to rattle on so it is difficult to find your main point (that is why I often ignore some of your responses that don't seem to address the point). You recently asked Jim B to present a concise defense, that would be nice from you too. For instance I really don't have any idea why you object to what I just said - I read your post three times, perhaps you can explain? What exactly are you arguing for or against?
                        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
                          "Sapience" is a very vague term and not of much use in this context. "Rationality" and "language competence" might be more like it, in line with the following leading definitions of "morality" I found:

                          - A moral discourse, statement, or lesson.
                          - A doctrine or system of moral conduct.
                          - Particular moral principles or rules of conduct
                          -Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
                          - A particular system of values and principles of conduct.
                          -Principles concerning right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

                          Since "principle" came up so often, I thought I'd look that one up too:
                          -A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as a foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

                          Value-
                          -the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
                          -relative worth, utility, or importance
                          -the degree of importance of some thing of action

                          So it seems that according to the leading definitions, "morality" is linked to language competence, and "value" could indeed apply to plants and to most other species.
                          I think you are reading into those definitions what you want to see. First of all, I presume your link of morality to "language competence" is due to the association of principle with "proposition" (which is linguistically expressed) and "truth" (which is an association between a statement and the reality it expressed. But by this stretch, atomic theory requires "linquistic competence." So too does evolutionary theory. You see, we cannot express ANY reality without using language, making ALL reality associated with "linguistic competence." But the structure of the atom remains what it is - with or without linguistically expressing it. So does the evolutionary process of biology. So too does how morality functions. The latter is obfuscated by the fact that morality does not occur in a creature without an adequate level of sapience. So you have linguistic competence and morality coexisting. But you have not shown their dependence here anymore than you have shown that atomic structure and evolution are dependent on linguistic competence.

                          As for value - I presume you are linking your assertion to the term "importance" and "utility." I agree that "value" is a word that can take on those meanings. There is an objective element when "value" is used to express the utility of X to Y (i.e., sunlight to a flower, water to any species, etc.). But value also used in the subjective domain, when someone is expressing a preference of valuing of X to themselves. A good example is "liberty." Where sunlight has a fixed "value" or "relationship" to the flower that can be objectively assessed and is independent of someone's opinion, beliefs, or ideas, "liberty" is not necessary to the individual and its value varies from person to person based on their opinion, beliefs, or ideas. The two senses of the word are being conflated here. T avoid the confusion, I should perhaps stop using "value" and stay with "cherish."

                          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          "Ought" and "ought not" are categories that we humans make internally. We know we are doing it because it is happening inside of us and it is tokened one to another by our words and actions. We cannot see inside the heads of other species to know with anything close to that degree of confidence what's going on in there. All we have are patterns of behavior. To project "oughts" and "ought not's" onto other species seems like a very unscientific unwarranted form of anthropomorphism.
                          I'm not aware of having done that.

                          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          What I meant was we don't choose love in general. I never chose to love my mother when I was an infant or chose to bond with other humans or to seek love and approval when I was a toddler. Unless there's something wrong with me, it's just part of being human, sociality isn't a choice any more than being verbal.
                          I think you are conflating "love" as an emotional response (which we usually cannot control) with love as a life decision (which we can). The "love" of a toddler is rooted in dependence and familiarity.

                          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          Yes, of course. That's circumstantial freedom. What I meant was actual freedom. I have to already be actually free in order to choose freedom. It's the paradox of freedom that Sartre referred to. man is condemned to be free. We can attempt to deny this freedom through bad faith but even this move is a perverted expression of our freedom. Only suicide truly disburdens us of this freedom.
                          Interesting, but I don't see how it changes my arguments. That we have one kind of freedom (freedom of thought and choice) does not mean we don't cherish the other.

                          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          Yes, that's what I said. I think that the core needs are not chosen but are part of who and what we are, to connect with others, to be free, to express and create, to provide the basic necessities, but how we fulfill these needs is up to us.
                          You are suggesting/implying a universal that is not demonstrably a universal. Not everyone cherishes connecting with others or circumstantial freedom (to use your expression). As for basic necessities (food, air, water, sleep), they are simply a fact of life, and I agree that how we meet them is up to us (usually).

                          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          Yes, it may become a choice to go on biologically surviving, but barring extraordinary circumstances, maintaining one's biological survival isn't a choice any more than ensuring that your tires don't blow out is a choice. And I was talking about actual, metaphysical freedom.
                          I have to admit that I chuckled a bit at your juxtaposition of "actual" and "metaphysical."

                          I think you are ignoring those extraordinary circumstances because they don't fit into your worldview. The fact that they CAN and DO exist speaks volumes. Just because most of us don't think twice about "maintaining our biological survival" doesn't mean it is not a choice - and that we are not making it every day. For most of us, caring for our basic needs has become habitual. Habitual does not mean there is no longer a choice. It means the choice has become subconscious and automatic.

                          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          I can only try. It's interesting that you just assume that the burden is on me to make the case to you.
                          That you find it interesting is interesting. You are the one claiming that morality is based on objective truths. Why are you surprised to be asked to show even a single example that you can support?

                          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          I have made the case that subjectivism is highly implausible via several arguments, none of which you've answered satisfactorily and some which you haven't even apparently understood.
                          So you've said repeatedly. I find that I have answered each and every one of these, and I have not had a problem with my understanding. I HAVE had the impression that you dismiss the responses out of hand without an adequate response and simply fall back on "I don't get it." There is not much I can say to that. I find your responses singularly unsatisfying.

                          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          I have also made the case for objectivism which you have not apparently followed.
                          "You don't get it" is a poor response, Jim. If it's all you have, so be it. But it leaves me with no real recourse but "yes I do." And on that we will apparently have to agree to disagree.

                          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          And yet you say that you have no burden to provide any argument yourself.
                          What I have said is that I know of no way to prove a subjective reality. I have provided the evidence that convinces me. If you know of a way or methodology to prove a subjective reality, I'd love to hear it.

                          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          As a matter of fact, you have made the argument for me in places, but when I point that out, you act like you don't understand what I am referring to. You can't put the pieces together , or you act obtuse when it's convenient for you to do so.
                          More "you don't get it," and I note that you STILL have not provided an example of a single objectively true moral principle and showed it to be objectively true.

                          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          Exactly. You make my point. You are the one who is claiming that freedom is a "value" that is subjectively chosen. I am pointing out that this is illogical, that one already has to be free in order to choose freedom or anything else. Ergo, freedom is not a subjective value. It is thrust upon us.
                          I find this an odd response. You were claiming something for objective morality, and I pointed out that what you were claiming for objective morality is equally true for subjective morality - so it is not an argument you can use to show that morality is rooted in the objective domain. A person who is not free to act upon their choices (or is forced to act when they would have chosen otherwise) is not considered a moral agent in either domain. How it is you think that this somehow demonstrates that morality is rooted in the objective domain is beyond me. It's seems to me like arguing, "one's preference for pizza is objective because you cannot choose to eat pizza if you are not free to choose or act on that choice." The entire argument seems preposterous to me.
                          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 Post
                            So what exactly is wrong with what the Communists did? They created social order, mostly through murder, and they have maintained social order through fear and power like China today.
                            Your question is essentially; "so what would be wrong with a society of sociopaths, or psychopaths? Can you figure it out?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Well Carp, did you ever think the problem may be with you?
                              Oh I have many problems...

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              You have a tendency to rattle on so it is difficult to find your main point (that is why I often ignore some of your responses that don't seem to address the point).
                              I've seen this excuse used many times. If you don't like how I respond - chat with someone else. If you selectively respond and ignore the core arguments made, expect to be called on it.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              You recently asked Jim B to present a concise defense, that would be nice from you too. For instance I really don't have any idea why you object to what I just said - I read your post three times, perhaps you can explain? What exactly are you arguing for or against?
                              Wow, Seer. This really explains a LOT.

                              SEER: Carp your main argument seems to be that because there is moral disagreement, that we have personal moral opinions, therefore universal or objective moral truths don't exist.
                              CARPE: No. I have NEVER made that argument. It has nothing to do with what I have been saying, and the fact that you think it does speaks volumes for your attention-paying.
                              SEER: OK, so you are not arguing against universal or objective moral truths? Really? Then what exactly are you arguing?

                              This is akin to someone saying:

                              Person A: So your main argument is that more powerful cars tend to run people over more.
                              Person B: No, I've never made that argument.
                              Person A: So you aren't arguing that more people are being run over by cars?

                              I have never made the argument that moral disagreement suggests no objective moral framework. My arguments that morality is rooted in the subjective rather than the objective is NOT rooted in the fact that moral disagreement exists. As I have repeatedly noted, moral disagreement can exist in either the subjective or objective domain - though for different reasons.
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-10-2019, 10:04 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 seer View Post
                                OK, I think I get it. But wouldn't His commands still be subjective to Him, even if His good nature is objective? In any case I can see how His goodness could be objective like His other attributes.
                                I'm not sure how you're using "subjective" here. Subjective in what sense? That he can issue a moral command that flows from his moral nature at any given time? I mean...I guess, but calling it "subjective" seems like a weird way to word it.

                                Also, again, God's good nature isn't objective. Not to him at any rate. I don't think "objective" and "subjective" really pertain to attributes that are intrinsic to one's very nature.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 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