Originally posted by seer
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 Jim B. View PostWhy 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.)
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.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 PostIs 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.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.
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.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 PostI am not sure if my reaction is "I'm not surprised" or "I doubt 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 JimL View PostYes, 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.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 PostCarp 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.
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 PostThat 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.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 PostNo. 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.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 PostOK, so you are not arguing against universal or objective moral truths? Really? Then what exactly are you arguing?
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 PostWow..
How on earth did you get to THAT conclusion from what I posted? I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote.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.
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.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWhat 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.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostYes, 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.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostYes, 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.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostYes, 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 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 PostI can only try. It's interesting that you just assume that the burden is on me to make the case to you.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI 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.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI have also made the case for objectivism which you have not apparently followed.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAnd yet you say that you have no burden to provide any argument yourself.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAs 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.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostExactly. 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.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 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell Carp, did you ever think the problem may be with you?
Originally posted by seer View PostYou 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).
Originally posted by seer View PostYou 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?
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 PostOK, 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.
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
by shunyadragon
Yesterday, 05:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment