Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Zamboni wrote: »
    The whole use of the word manifesto is a little too Ted Kaczynski for me...
    Zamboni on Family Fortunes:

    Zamboni, we asked 100 people to name a manifesto. You said Ted Kaczynski's manifesto. Our survey said... :D


  • Options
    #93
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Personally I am satisfied that morality only exists as an idea generated by our brains. I accept that other people may not be satisfied with this.
    Grand, and that approach might offer a way forward. (This is me trying to be helpful!) If you attempted a document that started “people who are willing to accept these following assumptions will probably want to share our following objectives”, it might make it clearer that there will be people who just won’t be part of the appeal.

    And I’d suggest the assumptions don’t need to be atheist, either. And I might even share some of them. I mean, I can accept the assumption that someone who murders without compulsion is a very sick bunny.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Yes, it does require an agreement that includes theists and atheists. Generally in democracies it is formalized through constitutions, elections, laws, civic behaviour etc.
    I’d wince at seeing a constitution described as an ethical text. I mean, I take it that Mick Wallace’s claim for payment of a party leader’s allowance is lawful, and probably even permitted “civic behaviour”. But many would feel it’s not ethical, given what so many others have had to give up.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    There is if it bases its moral code on the morality of ancient tribes, which in turn is based on imagined instructions from an imagined supernatural being.
    Well, no. For all we know, the best starting point for a moral code might be “Let’s behave as if there’s a supernational being who created morality, and that those moral principles have been around for eons. Let’s try to find some traditional source, such that might be ascribed to that being, and assume that it very likely has at its heart the kind of concerns that humans would need to address when approaching morality.”

    Isn’t that the basis of the people who take up Paganism? Don’t some of them say that recreating the kind of traditional, pre-Christian, religious practice puts them in touch with human fundamentals.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    You wouldn't say that the belief that the earth is flat is as valid as the belief that the earth is spherical, and you shouldn't say that the belief that the creator of the universe became a human being on planet earth to teach us morality is as valid as the belief that our thinking on morality has evolved naturally.
    But there’s no real comparison. The reason I’d be willing to accept the proposition that the world isn’t flat is because of evidence that it’s round.

    But there’s no way of testing or establishing if people today are more or less moral than people in Ancient Greece. That’s sort of the point – there’s no objective standard.


  • Options
    #94
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Zamboni on Family Fortunes:

    Zamboni, we asked 100 people to name a manifesto. You said Ted Kaczynski's manifesto. Our survey said... :D

    Yeah to be fair it probably says more about me than you...:pac:


  • Options
    #95
    Esel
    Registered Users Posts: 22,106 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Grand, and that approach might offer a way forward. (This is me trying to be helpful!) If you attempted a document that started “people who are willing to accept these following assumptions will probably want to share our following objectives”, it might make it clearer that there will be people who just won’t be part of the appeal.

    And I’d suggest the assumptions don’t need to be atheist, either. And I might even share some of them. I mean, I can accept the assumption that someone who murders without compulsion is a very sick bunny. I’d wince at seeing a constitution described as an ethical text. I mean, I take it that Mick Wallace’s claim for payment of a party leader’s allowance is lawful, and probably even permitted “civic behaviour”. But many would feel it’s not ethical, given what so many others have had to give up.Well, no. For all we know, the best starting point for a moral code might be “Let’s behave as if there’s a supernational being who created morality, and that those moral principles have been around for eons. Let’s try to find some traditional source, such that might be ascribed to that being, and assume that it very likely has at its heart the kind of concerns that humans would need to address when approaching morality.”

    Isn’t that the basis of the people who take up Paganism? Don’t some of them say that recreating the kind of traditional, pre-Christian, religious practice puts them in touch with human fundamentals.But there’s no real comparison. The reason I’d be willing to accept the proposition that the world isn’t flat is because of evidence that it’s round.

    But there’s no way of testing or establishing if people today are more or less moral than people in Ancient Greece. That’s sort of the point – there’s no objective standard.
    Could not read a word of your post, as Black text is almost invisible on the Cloud skin..... :D

    Not your ornery onager



  • Options
    #96
    HemlockOption
    Registered Users Posts: 239 ✭✭HemlockOption


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Atheists have been organizing under various titles for millennia, and under the title of atheism for at least the last fifty years.


    If or when atheist organizations become mainstream, it will likely be because atheism itself has become mainstream, and so there will probably be enough variations of atheist organizations to make that less of a concern. Much as I would like this to happen, I don't think it is likely to happen for some time.

    But I think it would be a good thing, not a bad thing. In the past, if you told people you were an atheist, many of them would have assumed that you were immoral and some people may have killed you. It is precisely because of atheist advocates over the centuries that most people today make different assumptions that you are more comfortable with. That process will continue to evolve.

    Unfortunately that attitude is not just in the past, and the Church's and certain high-profile media characters, are more than happy for that perception of atheists to continue.

    Most of us 'ordinary' atheists are dependent on people of a religious persuasion for jobs and so on. I work in a situation where I would feel distinctly uncomfortable declaring my atheism. And I don't think atheists are protected under the anti-discrimination laws. Can this be confirmed?

    So, as far as I'm concerned, anything that promotes atheists as being just as capable of living an ethical life as anyone else, is great.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    in the present , if you tell people your a priest,bishop, banker , many will think you're immoral.

    id like to ask michael what his definition of an athiest and theist is.

    i would imagine that he knows the answer to both...and that a theist would know the answer to both...to be fair.


  • Options
    #98
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    HemlockOption wrote: »
    And I don't think atheists are protected under the anti-discrimination laws. Can this be confirmed?
    I've no idea, but I Googled this:
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0021/print.html#sec6
    <..>

    (2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are—

    <...>

    (e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (in this Act referred to as “the religion ground”)
    This is not to say that there aren't practical issues - for example, we haven't really resolved what role religion should have in State-funded education, if any.

    I'm just reluctant to sustain some kind of Mopery; it's perfectly respectable to publically announce your atheism, in my experience. It's the theists who may feel a bit shy these days. Big change in a short period.


  • Options
    #99
    HemlockOption
    Registered Users Posts: 239 ✭✭HemlockOption


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I've no idea, but I Googled this:This is not to say that there aren't practical issues - for example, we haven't really resolved what role religion should have in State-funded education, if any.

    I'm just reluctant to sustain some kind of Mopery; it's perfectly respectable to publically announce your atheism, in my experience. It's the theists who may feel a bit shy these days. Big change in a short period.

    I haven't come across this term before and not sure I understand what you mean in this context. I looked it up here

    http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/mopery

    :confused:



    On your other point, I think theists declare their beliefs/allegiences where it really counts - in the Census - even if it's only done through habit. The Churches take enormous confidence from this, allowing them to act and lobby on their perceived strong mandate.


  • Options
    #100
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    HemlockOption wrote: »
    And I don't think atheists are protected under the anti-discrimination laws. Can this be confirmed?
    That is correct. The Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Act outlaw discrimination on the basis of religion (as cited by GCU above) but those Acts also include provisions that explicitly exempt religious organizations from having to comply with them.

    For example, further down in the Employment Equality Act that GCU cites is:

    37.—(1) A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if—(a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution, or (b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.

    And within the Equal Status Act:

    7.—(2) An educational establishment shall not discriminate in relation to—(a) the admission or the terms or conditions of admission of a person as a student to the establishment, (b) the access of a student to any course, facility or benefit provided by the establishment, (c) any other term or condition of participation in the establishment by a student, or (d) the expulsion of a student from the establishment or any other sanction against the student.

    (3) An educational establishment does not discriminate under subsection (2) by reason only that—(c) where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school

    Among other examples are that the President, Judges and members of the Council of State have to swear religious oaths, and that the blasphemy law protects only religious beliefs but not nonreligious philosophical beliefs.

    I think it is fair to say that our society is more liberal and pluralist than it was however many decades ago, but our laws have still to catch up with that progress.


  • Options
    #101
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    in the present , if you tell people your a priest,bishop, banker , many will think you're immoral.
    Yes, but that is because some priests, bishops and bankers have been shown to have acted immorally while acting in their capacity as priests, bishops and bankers. Whereas some people thought/think that atheists are immoral simply because they don't believe in the existence of gods.
    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    id like to ask michael what his definition of an athiest and theist is.
    A theist is a person who believes in the existence of one or more supernatural gods, typically a personal god with whom they can have a relationship. An atheist can be a person who either passively disbelieves in the existence of any such gods, or actively believes that there are no gods.
    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    i would imagine that he knows the answer to both...and that a theist would know the answer to both...to be fair.
    In my experience, some theists can be very confused about what an atheist is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    HemlockOption wrote: »
    I haven't come across this term before and not sure I understand what you mean in this context. I looked it up here

    http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/mopery

    :confused:
    Moping in the context that I assume GCU meant means just wandering around being depressed about things.

    As an aside, Professor Liam Kennedy of Queens University coined the phrase MOPE Syndrome a few decades ago to describe some Northern Ireland citizens: he defined it as Most Oppressed People Ever Syndrome.


  • Options
    #103
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    HemlockOption wrote: »
    I haven't come across this term before and not sure I understand what you mean in this context. I looked it up here

    http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/mopery

    :confused:
    Apologies. I meant it in this sense.
    http://sluggerotoole.com/2006/05/05/mope_moping_and_mopery/

    MOPE is an acronym that derives from the title of an essay written by Professor Liam Kennedy a few years back. It comes with the sub title: THE HISTORICAL SYNDROME OF THE MOST OPPRESSED PEOPLE EVER.
    HemlockOption wrote: »
    On your other point, I think theists declare their beliefs/allegiences where it really counts - in the Census - even if it's only done through habit. The Churches take enormous confidence from this, allowing them to act and lobby on their perceived strong mandate.
    I'd agree that the Churches can use the Census statistics as a tool to retain a status in the education sector that, in truth, they don't deserve. Ditto for the Irish language lobby.

    And I'm not saying I don't favour change - but I think we need to be very clear-eyed about what the problem is. I think part of the issue is that the Churches have a clear agenda. What we might loosely call "secular forces" don't. A negative agenda of "get religion out of school" would be no more effective than a negative agenda of "get compulsory Irish out of school", as you need some positive agenda or vision of some brilliant alternative that we can otherwise achieve.

    I think that's why, despite my criticisms of the actual text, I do feel that there is a benefit in folk like Michael Nugent trying to set down some kind of positive agenda. I'm just not sure that "atheism" is something that people will want to identify with strongly enough for it to be a vehicle for change.

    But it strikes me a that lots of discussions, like this one, might help people uncovered what might be a suitable vehicle. For my own part, I'd don't feel I'm in conflict with theists, or that I've much to fear from them. I wouldn't subscribe to a manifesto that excluded them.


  • Options
    #104
    raah!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Since lots of people have responded I'll just make two posts.
    Sarky wrote: »
    Eating human flesh is stupid for several reasons. We don't taste particularly good, we're not very nourishing compared to animals lower on the food chain, and it comes with the highly unpleasant risk of picking up diseases like kuru.


    And specifically to keep you happy, the baby eater would get caught, and crime doesn't pay.
    The question is not why it's stupid to do so, or whether or not eating baby flesh is nutritional, the question is why is it immoral. And you miss the point of the example if you say "there is no advantage". If you want I can construct a general example of "something which benefits the individual perpetrating the 'crime' and is a disadvantage to the victim and society in general".
    Dades wrote: »
    I think you're mixing up aspiration with enforcement.

    One can only aspire to live in a society where the agreed rules are adhered to. Of course the reality is with humans you need some form of enforcement to ensure that some of the rules are followed some of the time. I'm pretty sure nobody here is addressing the latter.
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by aspiration. I'll take a gander and say that that just means what moral system you prefer, and therefore aspire to proliferate.

    And in this case the choice of moral system and the enforcement are linked in a simple way. That man can "aspire" to live in a society where there is sexy babies to eat, and everyone else can "aspire" to live in a society where people think eating babies is bad. The problem is, that all they can do is "enforce" this baby eater not to eat babies. They can give him no reason for him to change his aspiration.

    You have no reason for a man who likes eating babies, to not aspire to eating babies. All you can say is that "if you eat babies we'll punish you". You can't convince him that it is bad.

    That is the way in which I see aspiration and enforcement as linked but distinct. I don't see that the two are confused with each other.
    pH wrote: »
    I can kind of see where you're coming from with this - except I can't see why it's got more to do with atheists than with theists.

    I just don't see how "I believe God exists" gives you any objective moral or ethical code - It becomes some weird theological/philosophical game about guessing what god may or may not want.
    It is more a problem for the general atheist than for the general religionist because religions tend to have well defined moral codes that do not change, and that they believe to have a meta-ethical grounding for these codes. They are not guessing anything. They are convinced of why a certain moral code is appropriate (it comes from the bible, and they trust the accuracy of the bible etc.) and they accordingly adhere to it. They never at any point recognise their choice of moral code as being arbitrary. They have meta-ethics, where as atheists who understand their position will recognise that they have none (as they have said).

    So all that matters is that they believe that they have an objective grounding, and they can then go on to consistently say that people who don't hold this shouldn't do that and that people who think eating babies is good are wrong.
    There are many religions and sects, all claiming God has revealed his wishes to them, are you saying that there are many contradictory "objective moral codes"? And they're all good and preferable because people claim they're God's? Or are you saying yours is special and other religious believers' codes are lumped with the worthless atheist ones?

    I'm talking about the internal consistency of them saying "we have this moral code, and others are wrong". They can say that because they believe, for whatever reasons you, or opposing sects, will disagree with, that their moral code is objectively grounded. You can say that you think they are wrong because you think their meta-ethical stuff (the metaphysics of this or that religion) is wrong, but you can't say it's inconsistent for them to proliferate their own moral understanding.

    It is this (supposed) objective grounding that gives them a foot to stand on when they want to criticise someone else's choice of what is right or wrong. For atheists, this belief in an objective grounding for their own ethics is absent. Now, you can say atheists are right and that theists are wrong in holding a belief in this objective groudning, but it's not consistent for you to criticise any other moral system without such an objective grounding. You can say "I think that eating babies is wrong", but you cannot give someone who says "I think eating babies is cool" any reason why they are wrong. And since you will understand that ye are both coming from different axiomatic groundings, it would be rather pointless even to air your opinion that eating babies is bad.

    So it doesn't matter which ethical system somebody holds specifically, as long as they hold it to be an ethics rooted in something more than an arbitrary decision. They can say other religiously held objectively motivated systems are wrong, on the basis of their system, because they will disagree with their foundations. But they can't say that it's inconsistent for these other systems to simply say to them that theirs is also wrong. It is , however, inconsistent fro an atheist or a nihilist to recognise that their system has no meta-ethical foundation and then go on to say that one ethical system is more right than another.

    So, this is not a problem that any religions have, even though they all might disagree with each other.

    And just to point out, with respect to this manifesto and current popular trends. The thought leading to this manifesto, as I've pointed out, is more than likely motivated (as the use of the word flourishing anywhere hilariously suggests) by sam harris' latest book in which he purports to derive a moral system from science. So there is not the recognition of the arbitrariness of the choice of the moral axioms. There is just some nonsense about deriving ought from is. Anyone who has thought for long about this will see it's impossible to do so. This has a name and it's called Hume's gap. That it is logically impossible to go from is to ought. And if it makes anyone feel any better, Hume was also an atheist.


  • Options
    #105
    raah!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You probably haven't seen it refuted, because no-one has put it forward. You have presented a crass strawman - just because someone sees morality as subjective, does not make their morality a set of rules liked for no reason, quite the opposite, if its subjective then there must be specific and subjective reasons for the rules.
    The point is that there is no reason to prefer one set of "subjective reasons" for another set of "subjective reasons". So there is "Eating babies is bad because I don't like it", and "Eating babies is good because I don't like it". That was the whole point of the post.
    The other problem with your example is your conflating the rejection of objective morality with the rejection of consistent morality. Morals have an explicit purpose, and that purpose is better achieved with consistent morals than with randomly changing ones.
    Well I have no idea what you thought my post was saying. It's clear from the first paragraph that you didn't get what I actually meant, and I have no idea how you read my post in such a way to have this as a response to it. A rejection of consistent morality? So they only go for inconsistent ones? No, I wasn't saying that... Also, if the purpose changes then the morals can change. And you are just inserting words which suggest a non-existent meta-ethics. Again demonstrating you didn't grasp what I said. Feel free to go on about the explicit sam harris purpose of morals, but you'll forgive me if I stop replying to it.
    The first response could also contradict the terms of an example countering objective morality, if the terms claimed there person would never be caught.
    Yes... and it would be therefore silly to use it as an argument which contradicted the point that the example was intended to make.
    The second response is the basis for every moral system in existence. Every moral system, in some way, boils down to "do X , because, ultimately, it is better than not doing X ".
    I don't know where you got this. First of all I said "crime doesn't pay". This is different to "crime is morally bad". And no, all moral systems are not explicitly utilitarian in nature.
    :confused: Of course you can. Religions morality system, objective or otherwise, has expressed claims on the point of its application and its source. Religion says these rules come from god and are the best way for us to live. If you can show that they aren't the best way for everyone to live, and you can undermine the claimed source, then you can say they are objectively wrong. Hell, religion claiming to be objectively right, makes it easier to say its objectively wrong, as all you need is find one instance where it is wrong.
    It appears you have absolutely no conception whatsoever that the use of terms like "better way to live" are entirely dependent on the moral system you hold, and that in claiming a religious system is a "bad way to live" you are contradicting the belief that there is no justification for your own moral system. You are saying that their ethics is "bad" and yours is "good", but you can't say that, which was the whole point of the post, and which has been recognised by other people. Yes you can say that the metaphysics leading up to it is wrong, no you cannot say this or that is the "best" set of rules on how to live. As that is a meta-ethical claim for which you and others have admitted there is no atheistic justification. You can say that "I have a different system of ethics, which is based on an arbitrary set of rules, and since I have no reason to prefer morally any set of rules over another, I cannot even say that a set of rules based on something untrue is more appropriate morally than another".

    Also, just incase. If you don't believe that your morality lacks an objective grounding, that is, if you have the sam harris view that you can objectively derive your morals from science, then responding to arguments directed at a subjectivist meta-ethics doesn't make sense. Do you understand that saying people have no grounding for their moral axioms contradicts the latest sam harris book?


  • Options
    #106
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    raah! wrote: »
    The point is that there is no reason to prefer one set of "subjective reasons" for another set of "subjective reasons". So there is "Eating babies is bad because I don't like it", and "Eating babies is good because I don't like it". That was the whole point of the post.

    There is a reason to prefer one set of subjective reasons for another. And that is "whatever subjective reasons best achieves what it sets out to achieves, is the best reasons to prefer". Just because there is no objective reasons, doesn't mean you can't scale the subjective reasons on a scale from effective to non-effective.
    raah! wrote: »
    Well I have no idea what you thought my post was saying. It's clear from the first paragraph that you didn't get what I actually meant, and I have no idea how you read my post in such a way to have this as a response to it. A rejection of consistent morality? So they only go for inconsistent ones? No, I wasn't saying that... Also, if the purpose changes then the morals can change. And you are just inserting words which suggest a non-existent meta-ethics. Again demonstrating you didn't grasp what I said. Feel free to go on about the explicit sam harris purpose of morals, but you'll forgive me if I stop replying to it.

    :confused: What the hell... Look, your example seems to equate subjective morality with spontaneously changing morality, hence you think someone could change their morals purely based on the likelihood of getting caught. But this doesn't make sense (and doesn't relate to the reality of people with subjective morality at all, unless you actually think your example represents atheists). Why is it that people don't actually follow your example? Because they have (largely) consistent morals and this is because morals need to be consistent to work. Morals exist to ensure smooth cooperation between people. People work best together when they can trust each other (or, at least, they can trust how others will react to situations). The reasoning behind those morals may be subjective (and therefore open to change across the group) but if they could spontaneously change for individuals then they simply wouldn't work, as no-one would be able to relate to anyone else.
    raah! wrote: »
    Yes... and it would be therefore silly to use it as an argument which contradicted the point that the example was intended to make.

    Why?
    raah! wrote: »
    I don't know where you got this. First of all I said "crime doesn't pay". This is different to "crime is morally bad". And no, all moral systems are not explicitly utilitarian in nature.

    And I don't know where you got that from. I never equated "crime doesn't pay" with "crime is morally bad" and I never said anything about happiness. All moral systems propose a better outcome for following them rather than not following them. Crime is a subjective word for actions that are counter to a specific moral system ie anything you do that doesn't follow a moral system. Therefore, all moral systems are based on crime doesn't pay.
    raah! wrote: »
    It appears you have absolutely no conception whatsoever that the use of terms like "better way to live" are entirely dependent on the moral system you hold, and that in claiming a religious system is a "bad way to live" you are contradicting the belief that there is no justification for your own moral system. You are saying that their ethics is "bad" and yours is "good", but you can't say that, which was the whole point of the post, and which has been recognised by other people.

    I was keeping it simplistic by saying religions claim their morality is "the best way to live". You and I both know they make very specific claims on the purpose of a lot of their moral statements and punishments. By claiming objective authority, all we need do is show how just one of these very specific claims is false and we can undermine the whole thing.
    raah! wrote: »
    Yes you can say that the metaphysics leading up to it is wrong, no you cannot say this or that is the "best" set of rules on how to live. As that is a meta-ethical claim for which you and others have admitted there is no atheistic justification.


    If I can say the "metaphysics" is wrong then I can say the outgoing morals are flawed. Morals based on reality, "metaphysical" or otherwise, are going to more applicable than ones based on lies, ergo better than them.
    raah! wrote: »
    You can say that "I have a different system of ethics, which is based on an arbitrary set of rules, and since I have no reason to prefer morally any set of rules over another, I cannot even say that a set of rules based on something untrue is more appropriate morally than another".

    You must get awful itchy working with all that straw. Didn't I start my first post pointing out that subjective rules are the very opposite of arbitrary rules?
    raah! wrote: »
    Also, just incase. If you don't believe that your morality lacks an objective grounding, that is, if you have the sam harris view that you can objectively derive your morals from science, then responding to arguments directed at a subjectivist meta-ethics doesn't make sense. Do you understand that saying people have no grounding for their moral axioms contradicts the latest sam harris book?

    I don't read Sam Harris, or any atheist writer for that matter, so why the hell should I care what contradicts whose book?


  • Options
    #107
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    There is a reason to prefer one set of subjective reasons for another. And that is "whatever subjective reasons best achieves what it sets out to achieves, is the best reasons to prefer". Just because there is no objective reasons, doesn't mean you can't scale the subjective reasons on a scale from effective to non-effective.
    Indeed, but isn't the point that "effectiveness" is useless in advising on ethical questions. It can just inform you of the most effective way of eating babies - such as required cooking times, and in what situations fava beans and chianti make for suitable accompaniments.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    People work best together when they can trust each other (or, at least, they can trust how others will react to situations).
    Indeed, that is probably one of the key considerations in play. And this is where the discussion has gone on, for thousands of years at this stage.

    Hobbes (as I understand it) suggested that the best way of creating that trust was by everyone accepting an arbitrary, over-riding authority. He felt that, without that, society would be unable to function.
    Thomas Hobbes wrote:
    During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man.

    To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.

    No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
    We are just effectively carrying on that same discussion. I think Raah's points (as I read them) are really just suggesting that we're carrying on this discussion in ignorance of how much has already been said, for thousands of years, about these intractable problems.


  • Options
    #108
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Indeed, but isn't the point that "effectiveness" is useless in advising on ethical questions. It can just inform you of the most effective way of eating babies - such as required cooking times, and in what situations fava beans and chianti make for suitable accompaniments.

    If that's the point then its pretty dumb. Ethical rules, as a whole, have set purposes. We can measure their effectiveness, as a whole, at reaching those purposes. Ethical rules are simple arguments : "Do "X" because, in some way, it is better than not doing "X". We can test that, by seeing if doing "X" is actually better than not doing "X".
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Hobbes (as I understand it) suggested that the best way of creating that trust was by everyone accepting an arbitrary, over-riding authority. He felt that, without that, society would be unable to function.

    Which is a non sequitor, given that, you know, society functions and has done for the last few thousand years. Saying that a universally consistent set of rules is makes for more stability is true, but that doesn't imply those rules must be arbitrary or completely over-riding and unchangeable.
    Being argued in advance, and open to reasoned change after implementation will not make an ethics system weaker.


  • Options
    #109
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If that's the point then its pretty dumb. Ethical rules, as a whole, have set purposes. We can measure their effectiveness, as a whole, at reaching those purposes. Ethical rules are simple arguments : "Do "X" because, in some way, it is better than not doing "X". We can test that, by seeing if doing "X" is actually better than not doing "X".
    I don't think you've got the point, and repeat what I said.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Which is a non sequitor, given that, you know, society functions and has done for the last few thousand years. Saying that a universally consistent set of rules is makes for more stability is true, but that doesn't imply those rules must be arbitrary or completely over-riding and unchangeable.
    I don't think you are addressing the point. If you accept that people need some basis for trust and certainty, you need to have (as you say) consistent rules. As there is no objective basis for any set of rules, the only way of achieving consistency is by some arbitrary decision.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Being argued in advance, and open to reasoned change after implementation will not make an ethics system weaker.
    What is your basis for this contention?


  • Options
    #110
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I don't think you've got the point, and repeat what I said.

    Then you need t explain it another way, because I don't see what I missed.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I don't think you are addressing the point. If you accept that people need some basis for trust and certainty, you need to have (as you say) consistent rules. As there is no objective basis for any set of rules, the only way of achieving consistency is by some arbitrary decision.

    Still a non sequitor. There is no objective basis for arguing one method of education over another -sometimes abstract explanation is more applicable than direct example or vice-versa, but that doesn't mean you can just arbitrarily pick any method over another. One set of rules or method may not be best for all time, but that doesn't mean it cant be best this specific time.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    What is your basis for this contention?

    That a set of rules that purports to create a positive reality will better achieve that by being opening to humans refining their understanding of that reality.


  • Options
    #111
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Ethical rules, as a whole, have set purposes. We can measure their effectiveness, as a whole, at reaching those purposes.
    OK, I'll try again. The point is that reason adds nothing to how you set those purposes. And the purposes are the ethics; they are the things that we value.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    One set of rules or method may not be best for all time, but that doesn't mean it cant be best this specific time.
    So? The point Hobbes is making is more around how a set of rules gains authority. He's confronting the same intractable problem as us - which is there is really no way of telling what rule or method is better or best at any time, and any rule that might secure the best public option (even if we could agree it formally) will probably suffer from the tragedy of the commons.

    I'm not sure you're grappling with the issue, and I'm not sure how to bring you to the point where you are. If anyone else can identify how to bridge the gap, please do jump in.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    That a set of rules that purports to create a positive reality will better achieve that by being opening to humans refining their understanding of that reality.
    That's an assertion, not a basis.

    I could equally assert that human understanding has nothing to add to moral questions, and that social order is therefore best secured by forcing people to conform to one or other religion.

    I'm not asserting that to be the case. I am saying that the statement has the same validity as yours.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    OK, I'll try again. The point is that reason adds nothing to how you set those purposes. And the purposes are the ethics; they are the things that we value.

    How can you set them without reason? What makes you think we value things without reason? You seem to be proposing that ethics are without reason in order to conclude that ethics are without reason.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    So? The point Hobbes is making is more around how a set of rules gains authority. He's confronting the same intractable problem as us - which is there is really no way of telling what rule or method is better or best at any time, and any rule that might secure the best public option (even if we could agree it formally) will probably suffer from the tragedy of the commons.

    I'm not sure you're grappling with the issue, and I'm not sure how to bring you to the point where you are. If anyone else can identify how to bridge the gap, please do jump in.

    I'm not grappling with the issue because its a non-issue, its just an assertion with no logical back up to justify it. I don't understand how anyone can seriously say that there is no way of telling what rule or method is better at any time. How, exactly, are we prevented from examine multiple rules, their justifications and possible outcomes, and determining which actually achieves its goal better? Forget about them being called ethics or morals, you are basically saying that it is impossible to examine two possible versions of a piece of legislation and deciding which one works better.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    That's an assertion, not a basis.

    Its not an assertion, its a logical argument. How, exactly, can we say what a set of rules has done, or will do, to reality if we are not willing to understand that reality? An arbitrarily assigned, non-changing rule has no relation to a current reality, or even the reality its supposed to create, and takes no measure of the effect of its own implication. A rule, pulled out of the air and enforced with no chance for change, only guarantees a random response, not the desired one. A reasoned rule, open to change, has a far greater chance of reaching its desired response, by allowing for unknown and unforeseen variables. Ergo, its a stronger system.


  • Options
    #113
    Jesus Nut
    Registered Users Posts: 226 ✭✭Jesus Nut


    Mark Hamill wrote: »


    I'm not grappling with the issue because its a non-issue, its just an assertion with no logical back up to justify it. I don't understand how anyone can seriously say that there is no way of telling what rule or method is better at any time.

    WHATS THE MATTER WITH YOU?

    CANT YOU FEEL?


  • Options
    #114
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You seem to be proposing that ethics are without reason in order to conclude that ethics are without reason.
    Not really. But if the basis for ethics was reason, you’d be able to demonstrate that very quickly. You’d demonstrate, in a flash, how reason dismisses the prospect of cannibalism – or how it permits it.

    The point is that reason is irrelevant to determining whether cannibalism is permissible or not. It might demonstrate that cannibalism is inefficient, compared to enslavement of defeated enemies (or vice versa). But it can’t tell you whether or not it’s on the menu, so to speak.

    Incidently, there’s another conversation that needs to be had in this broad area – which is whether “ethics” is just self-interest with good PR.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Forget about them being called ethics or morals, you are basically saying that it is impossible to examine two possible versions of a piece of legislation and deciding which one works better.
    No, what I’m saying (and Raah before me) is you haven’t twigged that reason cannot tell you what constitutes the value judgement of “better”.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    How, exactly, can we say what a set of rules has done, or will do, to reality if we are not willing to understand that reality?
    If understanding reality was an unquestionable good, there would be little or no demand for mind-altering drugs.

    If our capacity to understand reality could be relied on to deliver a better response than faith, the Western world wouldn’t be up to its oxters in debt because of problems anticipated and prohibited by Sharia law.

    Seriously, if it was all that pat, the discussion would be over by now.


  • Options
    #115
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Not really. But if the basis for ethics was reason, you’d be able to demonstrate that very quickly. You’d demonstrate, in a flash, how reason dismisses the prospect of cannibalism – or how it permits it.

    You mean like Sarky did way back in post 65, right after raah! suggested it?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    The point is that reason is irrelevant to determining whether cannibalism is permissible or not. It might demonstrate that cannibalism is inefficient, compared to enslavement of defeated enemies (or vice versa). But it can’t tell you whether or not it’s on the menu, so to speak.

    Of course it can. You simply ask why you are considering cannibalism in the first place and then determine whether it is actually the best course of action, keeping in mind the desire to keep consistent relations with other humans.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Incidently, there’s another conversation that needs to be had in this broad area – which is whether “ethics” is just self-interest with good PR.

    :confused: So start the conversation then?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    No, what I’m saying (and Raah before me) is you haven’t twigged that reason cannot tell you what constitutes the value judgement of “better”.

    Reason is the only thing that can tell you what constitutes the value judgement of better. Arbitrarily assigning "better" to some judgement doesn't actually tell you if its better or not. If reason doesn't tell you if something is better, what exactly does?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    If understanding reality was an unquestionable good, there would be little or no demand for mind-altering drugs.

    Non sequitor. Firstly, I never argued that it was an unquestionable good (it would be odd for someone arguing against objective morality to propose something as unquestionably good). Secondly, even if something is unquestionably good, that doesn't mean taking a break from it is unquestionably bad.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    If our capacity to understand reality could be relied on to deliver a better response than faith, the Western world wouldn’t be up to its oxters in debt because of problems anticipated and prohibited by Sharia law.

    There is a difference between capacity to understand something and application of that understanding. You cant blame human understanding of reality in situations where humans ignored it out of greed and stupidity, no more than you can blame a hammer you didn't use out of laziness, when you build a rickety chair.


  • Options
    #116
    HemlockOption
    Registered Users Posts: 239 ✭✭HemlockOption


    For me, having steered my kids through the Irish school system, I think it would be very useful if we had something clear to refer to if people ask where do non-religious people get their moral guidelines from. I think there are lots of Irish people having second thoughts about religion and will be looking around for an alternative system.

    I've read a lot of the philosophical posts here, but it's not realistic to think that you can have those types of conversations in day to day situations.

    I just think we need a simple way to get the message across, in order to combat inaccurate messages being spread by vested interests, about people who don't believe in gods.


  • Options
    #117
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    HemlockOption wrote: »
    For me, having steered my kids through the Irish school system, I think it would be very useful if we had something clear to refer to if people ask where do non-religious people get their moral guidelines from.
    It's called the Golden Rule. I don't understand what's so hard for people to grasp. It's an integral part of religious teaching anyway - all you're removing from the ethical code is the threat of divine punishment.


  • Options
    #118
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You mean like Sarky did way back in post 65, right after raah! suggested it?
    But he didn’t. He simply mentioned some physical features of cannibalism; he didn’t say anything at all about whether it was ethical or unethical.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You simply ask why you are considering cannibalism in the first place and then determine whether it is actually the best course of action, keeping in mind the desire to keep consistent relations with other humans.
    How is that ethics, and not simply self-interest with PR?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If reason doesn't tell you if something is better, what exactly does?
    Nothing, objectively. That’s the point. Reason doesn’t; nothing else does.

    Unless you subscribe to a religion, where your deity (or, at least, what folk contend is your deity) tells you what’s better.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Non sequitor. Firstly, I never argued that it was an unquestionable good (it would be odd for someone arguing against objective morality to propose something as unquestionably good). Secondly, even if something is unquestionably good, that doesn't mean taking a break from it is unquestionably bad.
    Grand. If you figure out the full implications of that, you’ll find we don’t disagree.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    There is a difference between capacity to understand something and application of that understanding.
    Grand, but I picked a precise example, where the failure was in human understanding. Very clever people, using lots of data and professional techniques for analysis, called it wrong and created a financial meltdown. Whereas, a devout Muslim who stuck to his principles and avoided usury and speculative investments would have done OK.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    It's called the Golden Rule. I don't understand what's so hard for people to grasp. It's an integral part of religious teaching anyway - all you're removing from the ethical code is the threat of divine punishment.
    It’s because once you remove the divine authorship, it has as much validity as something you read in a greeting card. That’s Hobbes’ point – without the authority, the sentiment has no currency. As Nietzsche would put it “everything is permitted”.

    Now, it could just be (as I introduced above) that morality is simply self-interest with PR. So, indeed, if the only purpose of morality is to secure our personal gratification, then clearly it’s just a matter of deploying whatever does that effectively. Part of that is to cultivate a good reputation with other people. But that’s not (so far as I see) what the OP is setting out – it’s setting out a set of principles that we’re apparently expected to accept as good in themselves.


  • Options
    #119
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    But he didn’t. He simply mentioned some physical features of cannibalism; he didn’t say anything at all about whether it was ethical or unethical.

    He used reason to dismiss the prospect of cannibalism, which is exactly what you asked for.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    How is that ethics, and not simply self-interest with PR?

    If you realise that its in society's best interests for its members to consistently support each other, then it becomes the members best interests too. Calling it self-interest with PR is a crass way to put it, but then again how is this not the case for objective morality?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Nothing, objectively. That’s the point. Reason doesn’t; nothing else does.

    Unless you subscribe to a religion, where your deity (or, at least, what folk contend is your deity) tells you what’s better.

    And that is your problem. If nothing can objectively tell you something is better, then the implication is that you can only tell if something is better subjectively, not that you can't tell if anything is better at all. The examples I gave proved this, e.g. the lack of an objectively right education method doesn't mean an inability to scale the effectiveness of various methods for specific situations.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Grand. If you figure out the full implications of that, you’ll find we don’t disagree.

    You'll have to explain the "full implications" that you see, because I don't see us agreeing much.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Grand, but I picked a precise example, where the failure was in human understanding.

    The failure was in the application of that human understanding. Long before the property bubble burst and the recession started there where loads of financial specialists who said it would happen. Banks ignored this because they where greedy and stupid, they where getting too much money in the short term to even consider the long term.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Whereas, a devout Muslim who stuck to his principles and avoided usury and speculative investments would have done OK.

    Or he could have driven a bomb filled car into a check point in Baghdad. That's the problem with following an arbitrary, authoritarian morality. A reasoned ethical may make mistakes, but its part of the system to look for and fix those mistakes. Arbitrary, authoritarian morality systems do not look for mistakes, it only cares about asserting itself, regardless of outcome.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    It’s because once you remove the divine authorship, it has as much validity as something you read in a greeting card. That’s Hobbes’ point – without the authority, the sentiment has no currency. As Nietzsche would put it “everything is permitted”.

    So what you are saying is that the rule is subjective to its authorship?


  • Options
    #120
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    It’s because once you remove the divine authorship, it has as much validity as something you read in a greeting card.
    But "divine authorship" is just something that people say to add apparent validity to the rule. We have no method of detecting whether any such validity is actually added and every reason to say that people choose deity-dictated moral codes in a subjective fashion. I could equally cite Mark Hamill as my source for this rule and claim it to be an objective one. Furthermore, Mark Hamill will smite your a$$ if you don't obey. What's the difference between divine rule and rule of law?

    There's this idea that morals need to be objective, that we somehow need a way to figure out what is objectively good. I simply don't see that. Why do we need that? Sure, without it, it means we can't tell a nation which advocates torture that they are objectively wrong. Assuming, of course, that the divine law you follow prohibits torture, which is by no means a given.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    That’s Hobbes’ point – without the authority, the sentiment has no currency. As Nietzsche would put it “everything is permitted”.
    Maybe without a divine moral code, "everything is permitted" indeed. Don't you therefore find it remarkable that most humans, god or not, manage to go through life never wanting to kill, steal or maim (at least, not in practice, everyone has the odd bizarre imagery rattling around their heads)? Where does this code come from?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    HemlockOption
    Registered Users Posts: 239 ✭✭HemlockOption


    doctoremma wrote: »
    It's called the Golden Rule. I don't understand what's so hard for people to grasp. It's an integral part of religious teaching anyway - all you're removing from the ethical code is the threat of divine punishment.

    I'm assuming the golden rule you refer to is this: you should do onto others as you would like others to do onto you.

    Do you think that this is associated with atheism in the minds of the general public? Or is it seen as a religious teaching ?

    On this forum we're communicating with like-minded people, but we live in a society permeated by religion, and kids in most cases, have to go through a religious school system. As adults, we can take the slings and arrows, but I think it's important to equip our kids with the means to argue their position.

    Some people may find it difficult to articulate moral concepts in social situations. Not everyone is trained in formulating philosophical arguments. Clearly set-out ethical principles could help in this.


Advertisement