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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Comments
-
Not my own as such, but I suppose the Irish state carries one for me in the form of the police who protect me and others from individuals who cannot be reasoned with. And on a larger scale the EU, UN and NATO carry an array of obscenely big sticks that protect me from any new age Hitlers.
But that is the very reasoning that enabled fascism and the Nazis in the first place.
I am very wary of authorities who claim to be protecting me.0 -
As you should be wary, as they are representing you and your ethical stance somewhat. We give consent to be protected under the rule of law by the police instead of all of us trying to protect ourselves.But that is the very reasoning that enabled fascism and the Nazis in the first place.
I am very wary of authorities who claim to be protecting me.
The reasoning that enabled the excess of fascism was dehumanising those that were the "other".
The reasoning that defeated the fascists was realising that an appeal to their morals would not work and that it was time to build big sticks or we'll be the next "other".0 -
See its the big stick that bothers me because then it the stick that counts not the subjective or objective reason.
It is the stick that counts. No one can force someone else to agree with them. You can force them not to do the thing that you think is bad.
This is why appeals to the existence of objective morality are useless even if we suppose such objective morality exists. An non-demonstratable objectively morality is as useless as none at all.0 -
-
-
Is an adult having sex with a child always wrong no matter how any of them say they experience it?
What do you mean by 'wrong'; do you mean 'evil'?Her is a test for you: Is sex between a grown adult of sound mind and a six year old always wrong?
How can you describe a grown adult who has sex with a six-year old as being 'of sound mind'?
Let me ask you something; what is it about having sex with children that is bad/wrong/evil?
I mean, if you are going to claim that there is an objective morality then what is the difference between 'good' and 'evil'?
Is slavery an evil thing; were slaves good for the Egypt built by the Pharaohs? Is it a good thing that Egypt achieved the things it did? Could it have been done without slavery?
In other words, what can you say about slavery that is both objective and an issue of morality. You could say that slavery provides a cheap work-force; that is an objective thing but it has no moral implications. It is when you look at it from a slave's point of view and the slave-owner's point of view that morality comes into it; and 'point of view' is 'subjective'.
But back to the topic; your objective morality is basically - what God says is good is good and what God says is evil is evil. Is that fair?
The problem is that God has changed His 'will' on so many occasions as to show that good and evil depend on how God feels, i.e., morality is subjective to God. It's okay to have slaves but it's not okay for Jews to be slaves; it's okay to kill babies even as they suckle but 'thou shalt not kill'.
Morality is entirely and absolutely subjective; good and evil aren't actually 'things'.
Remember the story of Noah? God 'repented of creating man' and sent the flood. Later He regretted sending the flood and promised not to do it again. In other words, God thought He'd made a mistake by making mankind, lost His rag and calmed down after about forty days, realised that He'd made a mistake by thinking He'd made a mistake and apologised in a roundabout way by sending a rainbow or something.
So, if there is an objective morality then God doesn't seem to be all that connected to it.
Also, when He realised He'd acted disproportionately by sending the flood, why didn't God just press the 'Undo' button or do a 'System Restore' to a point before the flood? That way, there would be no record of the cock-up.
How do you reconcile a 'perfect God' with a God that got it wrong twice in the same story?
Or is it your view that bad-tempered and irrational are elements of perfection?0 -
0
-
-
There is nothing natural about the suspension of the known laws of nature.
Small point of order here. But Christians - and possibly other theistic religions - are not suggesting a suspension of the known laws of nature. Firstly, the known laws of nature our our observations about how nature works. If neutrinos were suddenly and quite conclusively observed to travel faster than the speed of light then no one would say that the laws of nature had been suspended. We would say that our previous knowledge, codified in things we call laws, happened to be wrong. The history of science is built upon discarded theories. Secondly, Christians don't believe that the universe (or the multiverse if you prefer) is a closed system. We believe that God, the creator and sustainer of the universe, is not subject to it.0 -
Advertisement
-
I suppose I could clarify suspension as being something occurring that has never before been verified in an independent manner. Something that actually goes against all that we currently know/have verified, about the natural world. It isn't to say that our knowledge is complete or that such a thing could not conceptually happen if you have an extra universal god.Fanny Cradock wrote: »Small point of order here. But Christians - and possibly other theistic religions - are not suggesting a suspension of the known laws of nature. Firstly, the known laws of nature our our observations about how nature works. If neutrinos were suddenly and quite conclusively observed to travel faster than the speed of light then no one would say that the laws of nature had been suspended. We would say that our previous knowledge, codified in things we call laws, happened to be wrong. The history of science is built upon discarded theories. Secondly, Christians don't believe that the universe (or the multiverse if you prefer) is a closed system. We believe that God, the creator and sustainer of the universe, is not subject to it.
We are left with an explanation for X that is dependent on accepting an extra universal and interventionist god preforming an event which goes against all that we have verified about the natural world.
We are are supposed to believe this supernatural account for X is credible based on the history of a cult that the cult wrote itself.
We are supposed to ignore all the similar cases where cults have endangered themselves for beliefs and histories which are transparently false and not supernatural, because this one time it happened it was for real.
The non supernatural explanation requires no extraordinary, non verified event and no trusting a self written cult account of this event.
We have in support of it an array of cases where humans have been obviously mistaken backed up by the knowledge that humans are susceptible to such mistakes.
Occams razor applied above will slice away the supernatural arguments.0 -
Thanks again for your response.You are correct, I have no means to say it is objectively wrong to go human field shooting. I do have the means to say it is subjectively wrong, as I have a human mind with which to do so.
I and many others operate on this basis so it isn't nobody. On what basis do you make the assertion that "It isn't subjective" other than your own opinion?
Most who do have subjective ethics are not raving nutters so we don't go human field shooting or differ too much from the normal social norms in our societies. We'd be hard to identify on the street from anyone else from our behavior or personality without getting into a heavy philosophical discussion.
You are making an appeal to how you yourself see ethics in the world as evidence of how ethics in the world work. You will see why that won't be convincing to me or others.
I would also point out the irony in using an appeal to how you subjectively see ethics as evidence of objective ethics:)
Ethics breaks without objectivity. That's precisely my point. If your opinion is just something in your head, it should have no bearing on how other people behave. If ethical truths are mind-independent reality, that is the point where we can actually begin to rebuke someone. What happens when one is rebuking someone saying "you should know better" is in fact an appeal to an objective standard of ethical behaviour between both parties.
If you're claiming that right and wrong, good and evil are simply subjective, then we give up doing ethics, we might as well live in anarchy and allow everyone to do as they deem appropriate without curtailments.
I don't make the assertion that it isn't subjective. I've actually presented a number of arguments as to why it isn't subjective. Ethical subjectivity simply put does not make any sense given how humans actually behave and how things actually work in respect to right and wrong, good and evil.Mathematics is based on axioms and logic. There is very little that could be called subjective when anyone or anything could arrive at the same mathematical conclusion completely independently provided the same chosen axioms are used. The same is not true for ethics and morals as the very axioms themselves are the important part.
OK I'll pretend a god exists for a moment.
If a god is directly informing you by beaming it perfectly into your brain what is the objective moral standard then perhaps you can know the objective moral standard.
If that same perfect information is shown to you/read to you from a book then you will inevitably interpret it in your own mind, and in that instant it has become subjective.
The fact that an objective moral standard could exist if a god exists does nothing to solve the problem of you subjectively interpreting it just as much as I subjectively interpret my own ethics.
And ethics works on the basis of utilising the conscience. I don't see what can be called subjective about ethical behaviour either given what I've already said about how humans really operate and on the basis of how humans really behave. The subjectivist approach, the one that atheism essentially by and large compels you to adopt, simply put doesn't conform with what is real in the world around us.
I never said that an objective moral standard could exist. I'm saying that given the evidence around us, one does exist. The question as far as I can tell, is how do we account for it? The reasonable approach seems to be that there is an objective moral standard, and ultimately there is some reason as to what that standard exists.
Or we could take the approach that there is no such thing as objective morality which as far as I can tell is a walk into denial.There is also a problem in where the god derived the objective moral standard. We may or may not want to go down this rabbit hole:)
I'm unsure how this analogy fits with what you were saying. Lucy subjectively thinks she is not a dog. Lucy nor a god get a free pass if they themselves have decided what the moral standard is.
See the end of my post for what I think about that dilemma.
Also, the analogy fits in in so far that although people might claim things about Lucy. Ultimately Lucy has the right to defend herself. Likewise, God has the right to tell mankind about Himself, and ultimately that is more authoritative than someone else talking about Him. Just as much as someone else talking about Lucy in a slanderous manner is less authoritative than Lucy defending herself. It is only fair to allow Lucy to defend herself, likewise it is fair to allow God to defend Himself against the slanderous comments that many make about Him.
Of course there are limitations to this analogy. Lucy is a human. God is not a human, therefore there are some differences, but the general point stands.You are appealing again to how people appear to operate to you. Even if ALL people appeared to operate on objective morals it lends no support to this matching reality. For example people appearing to operate on the assumption that Hindu gods are real gives no support to the proposition that Hindu gods are real.
No, it's not on how people appear to operate. It's on the basis of how people actually work in respect to ethical disputes, in this post, and my last two posts in fact.
Also, I've not said that people work on the assumption that any gods are real. What I am saying is that people work on the basis that there is an objective standard of good and evil, even if many people want to run away from fully acknowledging its author.They are useful because they help us be nicer to each other. To have respect for human life as one day I may depend on another human having respect for my life. They are absolutely not meaningless as the rights help us build the society we wish to build, a farer, more humane society. Just because we choose this for ourselves without a god to dictate to us does not lessen the achievements of human rights in any way.
Do they? By the by, doing what is good doesn't always mean being nice. In fact sometimes the doing the right thing can be construed as being nasty or indeed can work to the detriment of the person who is standing up for the right thing. There are countless examples of such situations in history.
The thing is these principles (which were called universal by their proponents) are of zero value if nations ignore them. Indeed, the same problem in respect to objectivity arises in this. Who are the United Nations to say that Iran for example is failing in its human rights obligations? Why is their subjective moral opinion any better than what Iran has to say? Unless, that is that the United Nations are appealing to an objective standard to compel Iran to do the right thing. Economic sanctions are another way that the UN and other countries appeal to objective standards of ethical behaviour concerning human rights.
In this case, it doesn't seem that world diplomacy even works on a subjective level. If it did, the UN would probably cease to exist and each country and indeed each constituent person in those countries would do what they felt was best. Probably countries would have no sufficient grounds for existence either if people were eager to be the core authority of what they should or should not do. Ultimately, if there is no means by which humans appeal to objectivity in ethical decision making, ethics goes out the window entirely.If a state denies these rights and liberties they are just as wrong to a human with a subjective ethical outlook as the human who thinks he has an objective moral outlook, who in practice has chosen his morals subjectively.
You have this absolutely correct but I don't see this as a problem in the slightest. Can you help me understand why this is a problem for you?
Read what I've said above and you'll get a flat out picture of what I'm talking about.
If people really subscribed to subjective morality, they would follow its principles. I.E - I have no grounds for claiming I am any more right concerning what is good and evil than you are. Likewise, the same is true of nations, oppression and anything else under the sun. If ethics were not based on anything mind-independent, we wouldn't give a damn about things that are evil in the fallen world around us. Each to their own, who is to say that is wrong?
Simply put, it doesn't work, and it isn't real. Ultimately the assurance is that the author of the objective standard that we appeal to will judge on the basis of what these tyrants have done throughout their lives. Likewise, for those who do evil, God will judge. If we repent and acknowledge our evil through Jesus' death and resurrection then we can begin to live as God desired us to. Accountability from beginning to end.
Atheism in so far as it denies an objective moral law giver is fundamentally stuck on this issue. Essentially moral subjectivism takes the lazy option and says, there's no such thing as right and wrong, make up whatever you like. It is an obvious form of denial about the truth. It assures me that Jesus really did tell the truth about man when He spoke about it:John 3:16-21 wrote:“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”It is possible to have subjective morals and apply them pretty absolutely without compromise. But this isn't trying to apply an obsolete morality though.
This may be where you gain the impression that humanity operates on objective morals. Hell, if you met me in the street you could easily assume I operate on objective notions of right and wrong when I'm crying because somebody stole my ice cream.
As an example, sex with a child was mentioned. I would view this as absolutely wrong and as presented this can never be justified as being an ethical choice. I make this judgment using my subjective assessment of what causes harm to other sapient beings. I make no appeal to a god or a natural universal morality of the universe.
It's logically inconsistent. One can't claim that things are objectively wrong when they are referring to subjectivity. Ultimately as far as you're concerned, when push comes to shove your opinion is no more valid than the one who disagrees with you, because you can't claim to an objective standard that gives it credence.
If someone stole your ice cream, even in that basic situation yes you would be. You'd be appealing to the notion that stealing an ice-cream from a child is objectively wrong. The know that that is the case, and that's why they are upset. Ultimately, I'd suspect that the thief knows it too. Humans can choose to do what is evil, it doesn't mean that they actually think it was the right thing to do. That's also a reason why our conscience can on occasions compel us that we've done the wrong thing. Guilt is a profound teacher of ethical truth. It can be suppressed, ignored and denied though unfortunately. However, just because you happen to run from something doesn't mean that it isn't there.
You're having your cake and eating it too. You claim to be a moral subjectivist, but you're actually appealing to objective morality in making that very point.I've only claimed that evolution explains our common empathy and much of our baser ethical behavior. It explains why we are somewhat uniform in our assessments of what is cruel and what is wrong. Culture plays a huge role in our ethical norms too though, so much so that our evolved base can be warped and diverted into all sorts of ethical positions, both good and bad.
I don't think it does. Again, I don't even know why you're mentioning "common empathy". You're arguing for moral subjectivism, I determine what I think is good, I determine what I think is evil. Other people do too. That philosophy is like herding cats. By and large in terms of ethical decision making, it isn't like herding cats. People by and large have an intuitive notion of what is good and evil by means of their consciences.
Also I agree that culture can play a role, but ultimately irrespective of culture people generally know about what is good and what is evil.I made no appeal to our evolved ethical abilities being any kind of objective standard. Can I have my cake back now?:)
I'd consider myself a big old teccie but I'm afraid this analogy hasn't helped explain things.
You have numerous times already in this post alone I'm afraid. Let the others read this and see what they make of it.Correct, I do have limited jurisdiction to claim anything is wrong. I have limited jurisdiction to enforce my ethical outlook on others. Generally this is fine and dandy as others don't bother me and I don't bother others.
The only problem occurs is when we consider society as a whole. As a member of a society we do impose our ethical outlook on other members of that society. Usually for the protection and benefit of society.
We do not have to appeal to an objective moral giver to give ourselves the right to do this. It is a form of self protection. We choose it for ourselves and when we deem it appropriate we use a big stick to get our own way.
This is the key difference. I don't think ethics is about enforcement. I think intuitively human kind appeals to an objective ethical standard in terms of behaviour, but you think that people have to enforce subjective ideas onto other entities so that they subscribe to the same subjective ideas. Ultimately, we already know what is good and what is evil in so far as we haven't chosen to ignore it or deny it on the basis of mere selfishness. People can choose to do evil, but ultimately they can't hide from the truth that what they are doing is evil.TL;DR
You assert that a human, subjectively appealing to an objective moral law, is somehow superior/different to a human subjectively appealing to a subjective ethical stance without showing why.
You assert that humans operate under an objective moral law but have not shown this to be the case.
You assert that having humans operate under an objective moral law somehow shows that an objective moral law exists, but you have not shown why this must be the case.
You assert that an objective moral law must have a law giver, but have not shown why that must be the case.
You assert that a moral law giver must be a god without showing why this must be.
Even if you assume all the above is true, despite all the counter points, you still run into the Euthyphro dilemma.
The Euthyphro dilemma isn't really the most convincing. I'm quite happy to say that God has determined what is good and what is evil simply on the basis that He created the universe and as a result He knows how best to live in it. He knows how it functions better than we do, and ultimately He knows how we function better than we do.
By the by, I suspect that it has been lifted out of context from Plato. I've read a fair bit of his work in my time but I haven't read that dialogue. I'm going to have to read that dialogue to determine what exactly is going on in it.
Hope to hear a response from you soon.0 -
I suppose I could clarify suspension as being something occurring that has never before been verified in an independent manner. Something that actually goes against all that we currently know/have verified, about the natural world. It isn't to say that our knowledge is complete or that such a thing could not conceptually happen if you have an extra universal god.
Yes, well in that case the universe as described by the heliocentric model was a suspension of the geocentric model. We can apply this same logic to any scientific orthodoxy that has been overturned and the result is wordplay.
I don't know what you mean by an "extra universal god". God, as described by Christianity, is the greatest conceivable being. To talk of God (I know certain atheists have a problem with capitalisation but the "G" is actually a meaningful distinction) being extra universal is like saying an orange has the properties of being an orange.0 -
BTW, starting next week on Unbelievable there will be a 2 week long series about miracles. Craig Keener, who recently wrote a two volume book on miracles - both in terms of the NT accounts and contemporary accounts, will be in discussion with Irishman Geoff Lillis. I wouldn't be surprised to find the latter knocking around these parts.0
-
And thank you.philologos wrote: »Thanks again for your response.
In your post, and the previous ones dealing with objective/subjective morality, you have made the assertion that ethics breaks or simply just works on an objective basis without showing why. I have tried to explain twice now why ethics doesn't break and in fact does not operate on an objective basis. I've used examples which counter your view but you have not provided any of your own which show why it must be objective.
Can you provide any support for your position without appealing to "it just doesn't make sense"?
You have also dismissed my examples by appealing to how ethics appear to you without addressing any of my points.
You assert here again.Ethics breaks without objectivity. That's precisely my point. If your opinion is just something in your head, it should have no bearing on how other people behave. If ethical truths are mind-independent reality, that is the point where we can actually begin to rebuke someone. What happens when one is rebuking someone saying "you should know better" is in fact an appeal to an objective standard of ethical behaviour between both parties.
If you're claiming that right and wrong, good and evil are simply subjective, then we give up doing ethics, we might as well live in anarchy and allow everyone to do as they deem appropriate without curtailments.
Ethics matter to us because they benefit us. Can you show why not having subjective ethics is giving up? I can't appeal to an objective morality but I can appeal to other humans with their own subjective ethics. If they are somewhat similar then we can talk it out and live peacefully. In practice this is no different from how you, subjectively, might point to an objective standard and another human might have a very different view of the objective standard as both you and him have to subjectively interpret that standard.
This has been the assertion you have repeatedly made without backing it up. I have provided counter examples but you did not address them.I don't make the assertion that it isn't subjective. I've actually presented a number of arguments as to why it isn't subjective. Ethical subjectivity simply put does not make any sense given how humans actually behave and how things actually work in respect to right and wrong, good and evil.
You have not provided any support for this assertion.And ethics works on the basis of utilising the conscience. I don't see what can be called subjective about ethical behaviour either given what I've already said about how humans really operate and on the basis of how humans really behave. The subjectivist approach, the one that atheism essentially by and large compels you to adopt, simply put doesn't conform with what is real in the world around us.
I never said that an objective moral standard could exist. I'm saying that given the evidence around us, one does exist. The question as far as I can tell, is how do we account for it? The reasonable approach seems to be that there is an objective moral standard, and ultimately there is some reason as to what that standard exists.
Or we could take the approach that there is no such thing as objective morality which as far as I can tell is a walk into denial.
I provided examples in my previous post as to how humans operate and how it might appear to be on an objective basis, but you did not counter these examples.
I'm still struggling to see how this analogy supports the case for objective morality. Lucy subjectively thinks she is not a dog. We subjectively give more weight to her own opinion because we subjectively think this is reasonable.Also, the analogy fits in in so far that although people might claim things about Lucy. Ultimately Lucy has the right to defend herself. Likewise, God has the right to tell mankind about Himself, and ultimately that is more authoritative than someone else talking about Him. Just as much as someone else talking about Lucy in a slanderous manner is less authoritative than Lucy defending herself. It is only fair to allow Lucy to defend herself, likewise it is fair to allow God to defend Himself against the slanderous comments that many make about Him.
Of course there are limitations to this analogy. Lucy is a human. God is not a human, therefore there are some differences, but the general point stands.
More assertions made but not backed up.No, it's not on how people appear to operate. It's on the basis of how people actually work in respect to ethical disputes, in this post, and my last two posts in fact.
Also, I've not said that people work on the assumption that any gods are real. What I am saying is that people work on the basis that there is an objective standard of good and evil, even if many people want to run away from fully acknowledging its author.
You still have not provided any reason as why people appearing to operate to an objective standard actually suggest an objective standard. Can you please suggest one?
These declarations and rules do not loose any of their practical function in a world with subjective ethics. They still protect the weak and help us live more peacefully. Can you suggest why we would just throw them out the window, if there is no objective standard to appeal to? Does preventing suffering of beings similar to myself become a non worthwhile goal just because I think this myself?Do they? By the by, doing what is good doesn't always mean being nice. In fact sometimes the doing the right thing can be construed as being nasty or indeed can work to the detriment of the person who is standing up for the right thing. There are countless examples of such situations in history.
The thing is these principles (which were called universal by their proponents) are of zero value if nations ignore them. Indeed, the same problem in respect to objectivity arises in this. Who are the United Nations to say that Iran for example is failing in its human rights obligations? Why is their subjective moral opinion any better than what Iran has to say? Unless, that is that the United Nations are appealing to an objective standard to compel Iran to do the right thing. Economic sanctions are another way that the UN and other countries appeal to objective standards of ethical behaviour concerning human rights.
In this case, it doesn't seem that world diplomacy even works on a subjective level. If it did, the UN would probably cease to exist and each country and indeed each constituent person in those countries would do what they felt was best. Probably countries would have no sufficient grounds for existence either if people were eager to be the core authority of what they should or should not do. Ultimately, if there is no means by which humans appeal to objectivity in ethical decision making, ethics goes out the window entirely.
Why would the UN cease to exist in a subjective world?
This is more of the same, see above and my previous post as to why it is not necessary to appeal to an objective morality.Read what I've said above and you'll get a flat out picture of what I'm talking about.
If people really subscribed to subjective morality, they would follow its principles. I.E - I have no grounds for claiming I am any more right concerning what is good and evil than you are. Likewise, the same is true of nations, oppression and anything else under the sun. If ethics were not based on anything mind-independent, we wouldn't give a damn about things that are evil in the fallen world around us. Each to their own, who is to say that is wrong?
Simply put, it doesn't work, and it isn't real. Ultimately the assurance is that the author of the objective standard that we appeal to will judge on the basis of what these tyrants have done throughout their lives. Likewise, for those who do evil, God will judge. If we repent and acknowledge our evil through Jesus' death and resurrection then we can begin to live as God desired us to. Accountability from beginning to end.
Atheism in so far as it denies an objective moral law giver is fundamentally stuck on this issue. Essentially moral subjectivism takes the lazy option and says, there's no such thing as right and wrong, make up whatever you like. It is an obvious form of denial about the truth. It assures me that Jesus really did tell the truth about man when He spoke about it:
I highlighted a portion which might help explain your objection. I and many others give a big damn about suffering because we choose to give a damn. I have suffered and so I can judge that other people suffering is equally not pleasant. If I can prevent suffering in other humans I will, as one day other humans may be in a position to prevent me from suffering. Call it selfish if you will but is incorrect to say we don't give a damn.
It isn't logically inconsistent as I don't claim anything is objectively wrong. You are right my ethical opinion is objectively no more valid than any other opinion. This is not a problem. I've explained why and with examples. I'll ask again, can you demonstrate why it is a problem?It's logically inconsistent. One can't claim that things are objectively wrong when they are referring to subjectivity. Ultimately as far as you're concerned, when push comes to shove your opinion is no more valid than the one who disagrees with you, because you can't claim to an objective standard that gives it credence.
I subjectively think it is wrong. No universal morals involved.If someone stole your ice cream, even in that basic situation yes you would be. You'd be appealing to the notion that stealing an ice-cream from a child is objectively wrong. The know that that is the case, and that's why they are upset. Ultimately, I'd suspect that the thief knows it too. Humans can choose to do what is evil, it doesn't mean that they actually think it was the right thing to do. That's also a reason why our conscience can on occasions compel us that we've done the wrong thing. Guilt is a profound teacher of ethical truth. It can be suppressed, ignored and denied though unfortunately. However, just because you happen to run from something doesn't mean that it isn't there.
Where have I appealed to objective morals?You're having your cake and eating it too. You claim to be a moral subjectivist, but you're actually appealing to objective morality in making that very point.
It is like herding cats, look around you and you see all sorts of morals that differ from your own. But we would not have survived as a social species had we lacked a sense of empathy that covers the "not murdering" and "sharing food" type situations. However do not mistake a common empathy in humans as an appeal to objective morality based on evolved morality. It just means we have a head start when we reason through our ethics as to what we choose as a good way to live for us all.I don't think it does. Again, I don't even know why you're mentioning "common empathy". You're arguing for moral subjectivism, I determine what I think is good, I determine what I think is evil. Other people do too. That philosophy is like herding cats. By and large in terms of ethical decision making, it isn't like herding cats. People by and large have an intuitive notion of what is good and evil by means of their consciences.
Also I agree that culture can play a role, but ultimately irrespective of culture people generally know about what is good and what is evil.
Can you point out where as I honestly don't see it.You have numerous times already in this post alone I'm afraid. Let the others read this and see what they make of it.
I don't think ethics is about enforcement either. It is about appealing to the reason of other reasonable beings. Enforcement only comes into the ethical debate at the extremes where reason has failed.This is the key difference. I don't think ethics is about enforcement. I think intuitively human kind appeals to an objective ethical standard in terms of behaviour, but you think that people have to enforce subjective ideas onto other entities so that they subscribe to the same subjective ideas. Ultimately, we already know what is good and what is evil in so far as we haven't chosen to ignore it or deny it on the basis of mere selfishness. People can choose to do evil, but ultimately they can't hide from the truth that what they are doing is evil.
That does leave you open to the arbitrary ethics claim, but I can see how that would not be the largest of problems for you given your world view.The Euthyphro dilemma isn't really the most convincing. I'm quite happy to say that God has determined what is good and what is evil simply on the basis that He created the universe and as a result He knows how best to live in it. He knows how it functions better than we do, and ultimately He knows how we function better than we do.
By the by, I suspect that it has been lifted out of context from Plato. I've read a fair bit of his work in my time but I haven't read that dialogue. I'm going to have to read that dialogue to determine what exactly is going on in it.
In summary I would like to know how you would respond to the examples in my previous post, without asserting that it is obvious, as I don't really think you've countered them yet.
Cheers again.0 -
It was a suspension but the important thing is that it was a verified suspension. It could be tested and recreated. There have been no verified claims of this resurrection type so far.Fanny Cradock wrote: »Yes, well in that case the universe as described by the heliocentric model was a suspension of the geocentric model. We can apply this same logic to any scientific orthodoxy that has been overturned and the result is wordplay.
I don't know what you mean by an "extra universal god". God, as described by Christianity, is the greatest conceivable being. To talk of God (I know certain atheists have a problem with capitalisation but the "G" is actually a meaningful distinction) being extra universal is like saying an orange has the properties of being an orange.
I meant a god that intervenes in the universe to temporally change known laws and to occasionally do what we normally think impossible. I was just differentiating between a completely non testable deist god and an interventionist type god.
(I use big G for God/Yahweh and little g for a god or gods)0 -
Advertisement
-
muppeteer: I'm going to need a fair bit of time to get my teeth into that. At this point though I'm wondering if you're ignoring what I'm saying. I've demonstrated rather clearly that there is are a number of things that make it evident that humans work on the basis of objective ethics. I also explained quite a bit as to how you fell into the trap of doing it yourself. I'm going to give it a last try later, but I suspect that it may go around and around in circles if you're not going to appreciate what reasons I've already given you.
As for the Lucy analogy you should go back to the post where I mentioned it first and read it in context. I was replying to this section in one of your previous posts:Your and everyone else's ethics are subjective as you have no way of determining what is the absolute without falling back on your own subjective opinions and assessments of what the absolute is.
In mentioning the absolute it seems that you are referring to a subjective assessment of what God is. I replied with the example about Lucy to show that although people can have differing notions about who Lucy is, ultimately Lucy's opinion about who she is is most authoritative.
The same is true for God. People can have many opinions about Him, but if He Himself speaks about who He is, then His opinion is authoritative.
That section was about who God is, it wasn't about subjective or objective ethics. It was about what we think the absolute is. Please correct me if I misunderstood your previous argument so that my next post will be more accurate.0 -
Certainly not ignoring. I just do not see what you see as obvious.philologos wrote: »muppeteer: I'm going to need a fair bit of time to get my teeth into that. At this point though I'm wondering if you're ignoring what I'm saying. I've demonstrated rather clearly that there is are a number of things that make it evident that humans work on the basis of objective ethics. I also explained quite a bit as to how you fell into the trap of doing it yourself. I'm going to give it a last try later, but I suspect that it may go around and around in circles if you're not going to appreciate what reasons I've already given you.
Each of your explanations, as I read them, gave no reason as to why objective morals operate to the exclusion of subjective ethics. I tried to give examples of why they are just a valid and evident in a subjective ethical world. If you have a problem with a specific example you can point me to it and I will try to expand/clarify if you want. It might save on getting to the bottom of the issue without going through big posts.0 -
It was a suspension but the important thing is that it was a verified suspension. It could be tested and recreated. There have been no verified claims of this resurrection type so far.
The resurrection of Christ - or the supposed resurrection of Christ, if you prefer - is an event that happened once in history. How do you propose going about testing this claim or any other historical event?
That the heliocentric model is "verified" is besides the point I was making. Do you understand my point?
Fair enough.(I use big G for God/Yahweh and little g for a god or gods)0 -
If I understand you you wish to understand the nature of an absolute. Should you wish to use your God as the ultimate author of the objective anything, then what we think of as the absolute/God is important. I would say that it still does not matter if it is about morals, Gods will or his wishes as we still cannot know in an objective manner what this absolute is, as we are still just subjective beings.philologos wrote: »
As for the Lucy analogy you should go back to the post where I mentioned it first and read it in context. I was replying to this section in one of your previous posts:
In mentioning the absolute it seems that you are referring to a subjective assessment of what God is. I replied with the example about Lucy to show that although people can have differing notions about who Lucy is, ultimately Lucy's opinion about who she is is most authoritative.
The same is true for God. People can have many opinions about Him, but if He Himself speaks about who He is, then His opinion is authoritative.
That section was about who God is, it wasn't about subjective or objective ethics. It was about what we think the absolute is. Please correct me if I misunderstood your previous argument so that my next post will be more accurate.
Considering you believe in a god it is somewhat reasonable from your position to think what he says goes.
I have already dealt with how this is still a problem for objective ethics because you yourself are not a god you cannot know the objective moral standard. And as such you use your subjective assessment to determine what the objective standard is.
Here is how I explained it previously in regard to ethics:
Assuming a god exists means you can more easily assume an objective morality exists. But you still cannot claim that because an objective morality may exist that any human can operate on objective morals as we are not gods.OK I'll pretend a god exists for a moment.
If a god is directly informing you by beaming it perfectly into your brain what is the objective moral standard then perhaps you can know the objective moral standard.
If that same perfect information is shown to you/read to you from a book then you will inevitably interpret it in your own mind, and in that instant it has become subjective.
The fact that an objective moral standard could exist if a god exists does nothing to solve the problem of you subjectively interpreting it just as much as I subjectively interpret my own ethics.
The Lucy analogy fails when applied to humans as we and Lucy subjectively think she is not a dog.
It also fails when applied to a god as we can only subjectively interpret the gods will, because we are not gods ourselves.
Hope this makes things clearer.0 -
We can't test it directly, which is a shame. So we are left to make an assessment based on similar claims throughout history and what we know about how human bodies work.Fanny Cradock wrote: »The resurrection of Christ - or the supposed resurrection of Christ, if you prefer - is an event that happened once in history. How do you propose going about testing this claim or any other historical event?
That the heliocentric model is "verified" is besides the point I was making. Do you understand my point?
Fair enough.
Resurrection goes against what we can currently verify about human bodies.
Supernatural events that are similar in their "going against what we can verify about human bodies" have never been verified or have been verified as either mistakes/shams/tricks.
This lends weight to dismissing the event as a similar sham/mistake/trick.
The above is not perfect, and it can never prove that such a thing did not happen just that once. And it is still contingent on our best knowledge of what we know/verify about human bodies/physics/human psychology. So verification does matter, with the proviso that it is not absolute proof or subject to change. But as a reasonable assessment of the claims it seems obvious, as to what is the most likely explanation.0 -
Advertisement
-
You use "evolved" in an unscientific way too!
Evolution of a species and evlution of a society are different used of the word!
the idea that authoritarians believe in conforming to authority and may thwart an objective moral has no relation to whether that moral is absolute.
for example in an authoritarian State when the state do not say it is unacceptable would an adult having sex with a child be right?
You are not often right ISAW but you are wrong again.
The evolution of man, the building of societies and the development of law are all part of the same process; random mutation and natural selection have counterparts in law and in society.
Take society; a new scientific discovery would be equivalent to a 'random mutation' and the implemetation of the discovery would be equal to 'natural selection'.
In law; someone causes a moral issue that is not covered by the law, technology may provide an instrument that can be used nefariously but it is so new that no-one saw the possible consequences and no legislation to control it exists. This would be a 'random mutation'. And in order to create a better society, a law will be 'selected' and the loop-hole will be closed.
Technology has evolved too in line with environmental pressures.
Crime has evolved; burglar-alarm technology has caused burglars to 'adapt' to their environment.
All life has evolved in a similar way; change something and if it is beneficial, keep it. All societies have evolved in the same way; change something and if it is beneficial, keep it. It is the same with all law; change something and if it is beneficial, keep it.
Science and technology, crime, religion; all the same.
It is worth mentioning that the tendency to believe in supernatural phenomena has been a human thing for tens of thousands of years. How can you say for certain that their (Ancient humans) Gods didn't speak to them; where do you think they got their 'spiritual knowledge'?
Do you hold the view that all non-Christians who have ever claimed to have been touched by or spoken to by God were suffering from some kind of hallucination?0 -
Certainly not ignoring. I just do not see what you see as obvious.
Each of your explanations, as I read them, gave no reason as to why objective morals operate to the exclusion of subjective ethics. I tried to give examples of why they are just a valid and evident in a subjective ethical world. If you have a problem with a specific example you can point me to it and I will try to expand/clarify if you want. It might save on getting to the bottom of the issue without going through big posts.
Muppeteer, I don't believe that morals and ethics are mutually exclusive, one seems to inform the other, the forerunner of which seems to be morality - but that still doesn't point to anything other than the existence of what we ought to do?
Unless you are saying the reason why we 'ought' to do anything (which is in essence morality ) is because it could have the boomerang effect of coming back on us and causing us pain and this is the motive for formulating 'ethics'? Is this what you are saying? Sorry, just skim read through the chat -
Whereas in the real world people really do say something is 'right' or 'wrong' regardless of whether it has a boomerang effect, that causes pain to the society, or person, and I think this is what Phil is inferring.
Very interesting points of view on both sides here though...0 -
The terms are pretty interchangeable as I see it. I wouldn't really have a problem saying I have subjective morals or subjective ethics.Muppeteer, I don't believe that morals and ethics are mutually exclusive, one seems to inform the other, the forerunner of which seems to be morality - but that still doesn't point to anything other than the existence of what we ought to do?
Unless you are saying the reason why we 'ought' to do anything (which is in essence morality ) is because it could have the boomerang effect of coming back on us and causing us pain and this is the motive for formulating 'ethics'? Is this what you are saying? Sorry, just skim read through the chat -
Whereas in the real world people really do say something is 'right' or 'wrong' regardless of whether it has a boomerang effect, that causes pain to the society, or person, and I think this is what Phil is inferring.
Very interesting points of view on both sides here though...
Here's a little article on the two terms.
I do have a tendency to use the word morals when relating to theistic/objective type reasoning and ethics for subjective type reasoning. Its more for clarity more than anything as I find the word moral is used more in religious contexts.
That "ought" can indeed be justified by appealing to a boomerang type reciprocating ethics. Causing "pain to the society" is boomerang based too as you are part of human society.
It would be a good reason to be nice to others but there are many other good reasons too. How we decide something is right or wrong is not simple and, in my view at least, not something we can leave to some divine arbiter.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »The resurrection of Christ - or the supposed resurrection of Christ, if you prefer - is an event that happened once in history. How do you propose going about testing this claim or any other historical event?
That the heliocentric model is "verified" is besides the point I was making. Do you understand my point?
Would it be fair to say that Lazarus was resurrected?
But that is not the point. To claim that there was a 'Resurrection Event' that occurred only once is a claim that is totally based on the word of one man; a man with a vested interest in promoting Jesus' death.
Also, the claim is only recorded in the Bible and therefore is reliant on faith in order to have plausibility.
The chain of events from the crucifixion to the resurrection were rushed and chaotic but very well planned. Everything went perfectly in the execution of the fulfillment of prophecy.
The resurrection can't be proved to have happened but if one was to take away the one supernatural element then you are left with a much more plausible narrative that demonstrates the political necessity for Jews to bring about the coming of the Messiah. It was the Jews who needed Jesus, not Christians. Remember, He was rejected by the Jews according to Old Testament Scripture.
I think that the Jewish intention was to 'design' Jesus to lead the gentiles away from God.
Judas was the only Jew in the group of disciples and he was in regular contact with the Synagogue. If he betrayed Jesus, mightn't he have lied to them all previous to that?
And yet, although the prophesy could not have been fulfilled without him, Judas is considered to be evil and in league with Satan when actually it was 'good' that he betrayed Jesus. I think he was a fall-guy.
Obviously Judas was working for the Synagogue but it could be that Jesus was too. This does make sense in the context of the information provided by the Bible plus a little care in how it is interpreted.
And Satan, he blew it didn't he? I mean, surely Satan would have rather had the prophesy not fulfilled wouldn't he? All he had to do was leave Judas alone or at least to try and use Judas to screw up the prophecy.
The more I hear about Lucifer, the less wise he seems.
Anyway, the resurrection fails to stand up to scrutiny whereas the idea of a 'faked resurrection' has plausibility and is supported by the text of the Bible even without recourse to supernatural phenomena.0 -
The terms are pretty interchangeable as I see it. I wouldn't really have a problem saying I have subjective morals or subjective ethics.
Here's a little article on the two terms.
I do have a tendency to use the word morals when relating to theistic/objective type reasoning and ethics for subjective type reasoning. Its more for clarity more than anything as I find the word moral is used more in religious contexts.
That "ought" can indeed be justified by appealing to a boomerang type reciprocating ethics. Causing "pain to the society" is boomerang based too as you are part of human society.
It would be a good reason to be nice to others but there are many other good reasons too. How we decide something is right or wrong is not simple and, in my view at least, not something we can leave to some divine arbiter.
Ok, but the law of ethics which we form from our sense morality for common good or for a boomerang effect or survival - is in effect and effective, specifically because the 'ought' to do good, or what is right, is in very many cases not part of our nature but also very contrary to it?
However, the 'ought to do' is still a reality outside of the material world either way for to achieve what we consider good and healthy things, like love and justice and mercy etc.
If it's only a construct of our material nature, and random survival of the fittest, to form 'ought to be unselfish' rules for example, than why do we as animals recognise it as a 'good thing to be unselfish' even when that very same nature is geared towards being selfish and accumulating individual wealth too? I think I agree with you that the boomerang effect doesn't quite fully explain the existence of morality, but it really is all that evolution can offer.
We see in the real world both scenarios, human beings who act according to what they 'ought' to do, or striving to, and also act according to what they 'should not' do - so it doesn't seem to be something that is inscribed by evolution to be kind to others etc., but rather something quite different and outside of a material animal - the 'ought' is more a striving after what we recognise as 'good' - but it's 'there' it has a presence if you like, but is not a 'law' moreso a foundation we look to when making those laws?0 -
We have brains with which to consider and reason above our baser nature. We decide what our "ought to do" is, based on our inherited instincts and refined by our own minds. This means we can go against our evolved nature so to speak.Ok, but the law of ethics which we form from our sense morality for common good or for a boomerang effect or survival - is in effect and effective, specifically because the 'ought' to do good, or what is right, is in very many cases not part of our nature but also very contrary to it?
I don't see why "ought to do" has to be outside of our material minds at all. We can achieve good healthy things like justice and mercy without appealing to an outside force. I would even think it more noble that we do this for ourselves than having it dictated to us.However, the 'ought to do' is still a reality outside of the material world either way for to achieve what we consider good and healthy things, like love and justice and mercy etc.
We recognise it as good because we can relate to other sapient beings in our society. It is also still somewhat selfish given it could still be seen as a boomerang ethic no matter how removed we might be from receiving a reciprocal benefit.If it's only a construct of our material nature, and random survival of the fittest, to form 'ought to be unselfish' rules for example, than why do we as animals recognise it as a 'good thing to be unselfish' even when that very same nature is geared towards being selfish and accumulating individual wealth too? I think I agree with you that the boomerang effect doesn't quite fully explain the existence of morality, but it really is all that evolution can offer.
I see little difference in the two scenarios, "ought" and "should not do". Both can be reasoned with our minds and informed/helped by our common evolved empathy.We see in the real world both scenarios, human beings who act according to what they 'ought' to do, or striving to, and also act according to what they 'should not' do - so it doesn't seem to be something that is inscribed by evolution to be kind to others etc., but rather something quite different and outside of a material animal - the 'ought' is more a striving after what we recognise as 'good' - but it's 'there' it has a presence if you like, but is not a 'law' moreso a foundation we look to when making those laws?0 -
Muppeteer I have to go out, but I will follow up on this later, and follow it with interest. It's a good workout for me, and I need it
- It just seems odd to me that if right and wrong don't in fact exist, than we're very fond of saying when things aren't 'fair' for us as human beings. It seems to me that the objective moral standard is in fact rooted in this being 'fair' thing that most of us don't practise everyday as human animals iykwim. When we say something isn't fair, aren't we directly relating it to something that is?
Anyways, thanks for your thoughts.0 -
But they don't, their is no right or wrong except in relation to someone else. If their was no one else in the world but you what could you do that would be wrong? What would be right?lmaopml ;
if right and wrong don't in fact exist,
We are not so far apart on this, athiests and christians in as much as all morality is based on the presence of others and how we deal with them. The only difference is we christians put an other in the equation, God.0 -
But they don't, their is no right or wrong except in relation to someone else. If their was no one else in the world but you what could you do that would be wrong? What would be right?
We are not so far apart on this, athiests and christians in as much as all morality is based on the presence of others and how we deal with them. The only difference is we christians put an other in the equation, God.
what about morality with respect to non humans? e.g. animals?
do you regard them as a "person" or a "being"
and what about inanimate objects.
I think Francis of Assisi used to apologise if he bumped into t chair or table because he respected it as a creation of someone elses work. The point being you can still do wrong without anyone else there.
One can extend this motif to the creation of God. it isnt so silly.
I might add if you take "God" or "nature" as the "someone else" in the "relative to someone else" then you have absolute morals and not relative morals.0 -
what about morality with respect to non humans? e.g. animals?
I might add if you take "God" or "nature" as the "someone else" in the "relative to someone else" then you have absolute morals and not relative morals.
I might have worded it better, 'Other' then; an acceptance that your not the only one.
Morality is neither absolute or relative its relational.0 -
Advertisement
-
But they don't, their is no right or wrong except in relation to someone else. If their was no one else in the world but you what could you do that would be wrong? What would be right?
We are not so far apart on this, athiests and christians in as much as all morality is based on the presence of others and how we deal with them. The only difference is we christians put an other in the equation, God.
Well yes of course that is the 'function' of morality, that it is in relation to others ( and of course from a Christian perspective, what we 'ought' to do in relation to God too )
However, it seems like a bit of a red herring to describe morality only in the sense of it's function, which is apparent and obvious to both the Christian and Atheist, I agree - and not of it's 'actuality'?
It's like saying 'right and wrong' do exist, but they don't at the same time, which is impossible. It's like saying that we sense these obligations, things like loving our children, treating others well, not causing harm etc, but they don't in fact exist, and are only a biological construct in order for the survival of our species. Doesn't this sound just a tad off? Is it satisfactory?
I don't know, I'm working my way through this, and although I am a Christian and believe in God first and foremost, I also recognise that there is a value in dialogue with others too, and seeking to understand a little better..0 -
This is a decent description of part of a relativist/materialists ethics. The part that may be "off" to you might be the adding of our own values on top of our biological emotion to love our children. You possibly would prefer something more solid/external to your own opinion? I can see how this would be appealing.It's like saying that we sense these obligations, things like loving our children, treating others well, not causing harm etc, but they don't in fact exist, and are only a biological construct in order for the survival of our species. Doesn't this sound just a tad off? Is it satisfactory?
I suppose I find it satisfactory as I like the thought of humanity being responsible for our own ethics. We can commend ourselves for our ethical triumphs and we must take responsibility for our own failings. This view may help the arbitrariness of subjective ethics seem a little more acceptable.
Of course there is no viable alternative from my atheistic point view so noble ethics or not I'm stuck with them:).0 -
Yeah I getcha, I think they don't exist outside of us but dose that matter? Dose it make them less absolute?Originally Posted by lmaopml
It's like saying 'right and wrong' do exist, but they don't at the same time, which is impossible. It's like saying that we sense these obligations, things like loving our children, treating others well, not causing harm etc, but they don't in fact exist, and are only a biological construct in order for the survival of our species. Doesn't this sound just a tad off? Is it satisfactory?0 -
This is a decent description of part of a relativist/materialists ethics. The part that may be "off" to you might be the adding of our own values on top of our biological emotion to love our children.
Is love of our children something that can be adequately described as building on biology, are we saying that love doesn't exist too? Nothing truely good exists, for the sole reason of goodness?You possibly would prefer something more solid/external to your own opinion? I can see how this would be appealing.
Ditto, the same thing applies to Mupetteer no? What we prefer and what is reality is vastly different for both of us, but has constituents that we can talk about - voila Boards..I suppose I find it satisfactory as I like the thought of humanity being responsible for our own ethics.
So too does Christianity make one responsible, but they recognise that ethics didn't just devolop randomly - where in fact, you seem to..We can commend ourselves for our ethical triumphs and we must take responsibility for our own failings. This view may help the arbitrariness of subjective ethics seem a little more acceptable.
Well, certainly yes people can be 'content' - being content is nice, but doesn't necessarily mean following a moral law to it's conclusion that 'we' collectively as enlightened individuals bear responsibilty, and are morally responsible for eachother too? I don't think that naturalism, while I think it IS informative, can adequately describe a person fully - neither do I look there for something that seems like a common sense, a basic thing.Of course there is no viable alternative from my atheistic point view so noble ethics or not I'm stuck with them:).
I know Muppeteer, and I am glad that you are willing to discuss what is on your mind, I'm only discussing what is on mine too.0 -
Is love of our children something that can be adequately described as building on biology, are we saying that love doesn't exist too? Nothing truely good exists, for the sole reason of goodness?
Sort of. Evolution has selected 'love of children' because it is advantageous to survival of the young. Other animals do it as well.
Love actually emerges from the value you place on yourself. In your mind, you deserve to survive. Love represents a way to be selfish while appearing to be sharing.
Very few of us can afford to be altruistic.0 -
Yeah I getcha, I think they don't exist outside of us but dose that matter? Dose it make them less absolute?
Yes because morality is always subjective; it depends on how God feels and that is not absolute. God is recorded as moving the goalposts every now and then.
Let me put it this way; if Got said it is okay to wipe out Muslims then I would say, 'No dude, you are wrong.'
Morality isn't about what God says, it's about 'being true to yourself' no matter what is placed before you.
And how many of us wouldn't deny it thrice before the cock crows?0 -
So too does Christianity make one responsible, but they recognise that ethics didn't just devolop randomly - where in fact, you seem to.
I'm sorry to butt in again but why are you so certain that 'ethics' didn't develop randomly?
'Ethics' are directly related to chances of survival; most people agree to some basic 'moral code' in order to protect themselves. However, some people exploit morality and they are the ones who end up as our 'rulers'.
Don't you see, morality is a way for immoral people to gain control? The unfortunate truth is that morality does not assure the survival of the morally indisposed, it provides a system that ensures the survival of the immoral.
Nice people come last.0 -
I might have worded it better, 'Other' then; an acceptance that your not the only one.
Morality is neither absolute or relative its relational.
I suggest you are careful about using Information technology terminology associated with data bases (absolute /relative/ relational) and applying the same definitions to morality. if that is your intent. i mean look what happened to those who used biological "evolution" and applied it to sociological "evolution".
If something in in relation to gods or God then I would argue, though context changes the situation it is in relation to an absolute.0 -
This is a decent description of part of a relativist/materialists ethics. The part that may be "off" to you might be the adding of our own values on top of our biological emotion to love our children.
Where is the evidence that the mind and emotions are wholly biological in nature. Medicine is still divided o this issue.
But there is a whole field of medical science which suggests effecton non solid things.You possibly would prefer something more solid/external to your own opinion? I can see how this would be appealing.
It is a quite complex argument that when someone speaks the words are just random babble and you decipher ht emeaning as you hear them. surely interactions with others affects language. If a person is isolated from birth they not only fail to develop language but also to fit into society. How is that biologically predetermined? It is sociological.
how can you show such things to be wholly biological?I suppose I find it satisfactory as I like the thought of humanity being responsible for our own ethics.
so it is okay for you to be happy with your blind faith but not for a religious person even if their faith isnt blind?We can commend ourselves for our ethical triumphs and we must take responsibility for our own failings. This view may help the arbitrariness of subjective ethics seem a little more acceptable.
where does Christianity say people are not responsible for their own actions?
So the Christian position is at least equal to yours in this respect?Of course there is no viable alternative from my atheistic point view so noble ethics or not I'm stuck with them:).
1. If the Niechean nobel ethics argument isnt apt why appeal to it? -you contradict yourself here.
2. Above you dont illustrate hos Christianity is in-viable. It comes across at least equal if not a better position.0 -
Advertisement
-
If I understand you you wish to understand the nature of an absolute. Should you wish to use your God as the ultimate author of the objective anything, then what we think of as the absolute/God is important. I would say that it still does not matter if it is about morals, Gods will or his wishes as we still cannot know in an objective manner what this absolute is, as we are still just subjective beings.
It's not important insofar as irrespective of what you, I or anyone else happens to think. Ultimately something is true irrespective of thought. Truth is mind-independent. I also believe that ethical truth as to what is good and evil is mind-independent for a number of reasons that I've already shown you. Just as much as people can skew the truth or lie, people can skew ethical truth and lie about it.Considering you believe in a god it is somewhat reasonable from your position to think what he says goes.
I have already dealt with how this is still a problem for objective ethics because you yourself are not a god you cannot know the objective moral standard. And as such you use your subjective assessment to determine what the objective standard is.
Here is how I explained it previously in regard to ethics:
I don't believe it is a problem for objective ethics. If this is God's universe and we live in it. He's perfectly entitled to legislate on the basis of what He has created. Also, as I mentioned about truth, if ultimately we all come before Jesus in judgement (2 Corinthians 5) then ultimately God's standard will be binding, it will be the only ethical standard worthy of our consideration.
You say that if God sets the standards concerning ethics it is subjective. It is subject to Him, but objective to us. However, if we extend that logic from a Christian point of view, logically it makes a number of implications for your position as well. Christians believe that the laws of physics are subject to God's will. When God created the world He determined them. Does this mean that they aren't binding on me as an individual? Absolutely not.Assuming a god exists means you can more easily assume an objective morality exists. But you still cannot claim that because an objective morality may exist that any human can operate on objective morals as we are not gods.
The Lucy analogy fails when applied to humans as we and Lucy subjectively think she is not a dog.
It also fails when applied to a god as we can only subjectively interpret the gods will, because we are not gods ourselves.
Hope this makes things clearer.
Not at all. It's the other way around.
Seeing that humans work on an objective ethical basis (and I've clearly explained this in my last few posts) it is more reasonable to see that it is reasonable to suggest that there is a moral law giver over Creation. It is easier to see that there is a God because of how ethical behaviour works.
The Lucy example is fine, because even if you and I have different opinions over God. Ultimately if He has spoken Himself, and ultimately if He is returning to judge. He'll speak for Himself and it would be particularly subjective any more. If not, I'll simply be wormfood by your opinion. Ultimately irrespective of what I may or may not believe, and what you may or may not believe, the objective truth will become clear.0 -
I suggest you are careful about using Information technology terminology associated with data bases (absolute /relative/ relational) and applying the same definitions to morality. if that is your intent. i mean look what happened to those who used biological "evolution" and applied it to sociological "evolution".
If something in in relation to gods or God then I would argue, though context changes the situation it is in relation to an absolute.
No intention of going down the memes route ISAW.
IF you change the last bit to "If something is in relation to/with God then I would agree" Then I agree.0 -
I would have thought it was fairly obvious from this field that all human emotion/personality is centered in the brain. I'm unaware of any alternative that is seriously considered.Where is the evidence that the mind and emotions are wholly biological in nature. Medicine is still divided o this issue.
Absolutely, humans are a social animal, not just a genetically predetermined lump. We evolved certain traits that help us live in social groups such as empathy, altruism, jealousy. We also learn and expand on these things by interacting in a society. Without a social group we loose most of what we would call uniquely human. So we are both biological and social combined.But there is a whole field of medical science which suggests effecton non solid things.
It is a quite complex argument that when someone speaks the words are just random babble and you decipher ht emeaning as you hear them. surely interactions with others affects language. If a person is isolated from birth they not only fail to develop language but also to fit into society. How is that biologically predetermined? It is sociological.
how can you show such things to be wholly biological?
I think you may have picked me up wrong here. Maybe satisfactory was the wrong word to use. I think that creating our own ethics is 1)necessary as I don't have a choice of having them handed down to me, and 2)A nice effect of something I can't change. For example it is like me saying it is a nice effect that the Pythagorean theorem is elegant in it's simplicity. But I would never try to use the fact that I find that nice/satisfactory as a proof of the theorem being correct.so it is okay for you to be happy with your blind faith but not for a religious person even if their faith isnt blind?
It's the same with subjective ethics, I find a nobility in it, but I would never claim that as any kind of proof that it is correct.
I think you have picked me up wrong here too.where does Christianity say people are not responsible for their own actions?
So the Christian position is at least equal to yours in this respect?
I could not and did not say Christians are not responsible for their own actions. They are as much as me.
I would say that humans with subjective ethics are responsible for creating our own ethics. As such we can take credit for creating ethics that we see as bettering humanity.
Whereas a Christian is given their ethics from an outside source. A Christian can take credit for following those handed down ethics but I doubt you would/could take credit for what you would see as Gods work.
1)See above as to why I don't appeal to noble ethics as any kind of evidence.1. If the Niechean nobel ethics argument isnt apt why appeal to it? -you contradict yourself here.
2. Above you dont illustrate hos Christianity is in-viable. It comes across at least equal if not a better position.
2)Well Christianity is inconsistent as I see it as you are subject to subjective assessment of what you think is an objective morality. As a relativist I can't demonstrate that practical Cristian ethics are any more valid than mine. But I can poke holes in the justification you use for them.
Phil: I'll get back to you later as I'm a little stuck on time.0 -
... i mean look what happened to those who used biological "evolution" and applied it to sociological "evolution".
Nonsense; in what way is biological evolution qualitatively different to sociological evolution?
Morality has followed an evolutionary path too; different societies evolved different moral codes through a process which is similar in character to the processes of 'speciation' that occurs in biology.
A kind of 'cross-pollination' can occur when when society incorporates the morality of another society into its moral framework.
It can even be argued that all social animals observe a moral code within their own societies; lions and hyenas see each other as evil and lions are morally obliged to take out hyenas when they can.
Morality isn't just a human thing, humans only apply it to humans, wolves apply it to wolves, lions to lions, etc.
If morality comes from God then why do lions and hyenas hate each other?0 -
I wouldn't say I feel that my morals or ethics were given to me, more found outside of myself. It's a small distinction but an important one. If God hands down the ethics and we only have to follow them or ignore them then morality as so defined is nothing but a set of rules for children. I don't think God would do something so simplistic. God calls us to more than following rules, we are supposed to learn and think as well. Love one another and everything follows from this. Yes their is a strain of Christians who appeal to authority rather than engage with the issue but thats true of all people, atheist included.Originally Posted by muppeteer;
I would say that humans with subjective ethics are responsible for creating our own ethics. As such we can take credit for creating ethics that we see as bettering humanity.
Whereas a Christian is given their ethics from an outside source. A Christian can take credit for following those handed down ethics but I doubt you would/could take credit for what you would see as Gods work.
I know I'l draw flac from several other Christian posters for this but.. I don't think it works if we only think of God in terms of rules, laws and do's and don'ts.
I'm not sure how it works but I think it's worth trying to understand rather than giving up and falling back on the do's and don'ts.0 -
I wouldn't say I feel that my morals or ethics were given to me,
Why not though? From the moment you were born, your parents, priests, teachers, the police have been shaping your morality.
If morality is God-given, how come we have to teach our children not to pull the wings off butterflies?0 -
Advertisement
-
himnextdoor wrote: »Why not though? From the moment you were born, your parents, priests, teachers, the police have been shaping your morality.
If morality is God-given, how come we have to teach our children not to pull the wings off butterflies?
Thats a good question, why didn't God make us perfect instead of just good?
I don't think morality is God given, something is moral because we are human, it's more a property of being human than an imposition on humanity.0 -
I would have thought it was fairly obvious from this field that all human emotion/personality is centered in the brain. I'm unaware of any alternative that is seriously considered.
I tell you in advance you happen to be going into a field of which myself and other academic collagues have interdisciplinary knowledge. i refer to sociologists psychotherapists educationalists and psychologists specializing in cognitive neuroscience as well as in assessment of cognitive disorders.
I dont argue from authority I am just telling you in advance so you can mark the cards.
the link you offer begins with 3rd sentence
so if the theory comes from there what is that when it is at home?Cognitive neuroscience relies upon theories in cognitive science ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
3rd sentence againCognitive science consists of multiple research disciplines, including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and education.
In the criticism section you find
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science#Criticism
you find a link to:
Can psychology be a science of mind?
By Skinner, B. F.
American Psychologist, Vol 45(11), Nov 1990, 1206-1210.
Ill save you paying for it you will find it here:
http://www.isac.psc.br/wp-content/uploads/skinner/Skinner_%281990%29_Can_Psychology_Be_a_Science_of_Mind.pdf
Now in that paper skinner makes all the arguments underlying psychology as a "hard" objective science -physicalism- and opposed to the epistemology of introspection (which ironically is being proposed by relativists here in terms of morality and "whatever you are having yourself" morals) and the philosophy of "mind". but at the bottom right of page 1209 havinfg attackd the problems with creationists opposing evolution being taught in US schools he saysCognitive science is the creation science of psychology, as it struggles to maintain the position of a mind or self
this was then and is today a continuing problem in the field.
this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
would have a lot to say about it
then there are these arguments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism#Arguments_against_physicalism
also i have pointed to the chinese room before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29#CriticismAbsolutely, humans are a social animal, not just a genetically predetermined lump. We evolved certain traits that help us live in social groups such as empathy, altruism, jealousy. We also learn and expand on these things by interacting in a society. Without a social group we loose most of what we would call uniquely human. So we are both biological and social combined.
Skinner would delineate "natural selection" "operand control " and "operand conditioning"
But there isnt a reductionist physicalism which is capable of deconstructing sociology. Even in biology while the concept is entertained it is not fully underpinned by empirical evidence.
Which is the problem you seem to think does not exist.
You seem to think the war is over and that science can explain not just the mind in terms of the physical brain, but all of society as well.I think you may have picked me up wrong here. Maybe satisfactory was the wrong word to use. I think that creating our own ethics is 1)necessary as I don't have a choice of having them handed down to me, and 2)A nice effect of something I can't change. For example it is like me saying it is a nice effect that the Pythagorean theorem is elegant in it's simplicity. But I would never try to use the fact that I find that nice/satisfactory as a proof of the theorem being correct.
It's the same with subjective ethics, I find a nobility in it, but I would never claim that as any kind of proof that it is correct.
Well you cant if you claim introspection is invalid. which leaves philosophical relativism with respect to morality in a very sticky position.I think you have picked me up wrong here too.
I could not and did not say Christians are not responsible for their own actions. They are as much as me.
I would say that humans with subjective ethics are responsible for creating our own ethics. As such we can take credit for creating ethics that we see as bettering humanity.
Aha! but then you are only responsible to yourself and not to the law or anything objective and outside yourself.Whereas a Christian is given their ethics from an outside source. A Christian can take credit for following those handed down ethics but I doubt you would/could take credit for what you would see as Gods work.
1)See above as to why I don't appeal to noble ethics as any kind of evidence.
2)Well Christianity is inconsistent as I see it as you are subject to subjective assessment of what you think is an objective morality. As a relativist I can't demonstrate that practical Cristian ethics are any more valid than mine. But I can poke holes in the justification you use for them.
All you are saying here is you cant tell a Christian they are wrong. which destroys your position. because all sorts of things are always wrong irrespective of your or anyone else saying or even believing they are not.
If you are going to take a wrong does like a child abuser and say you cant say their actions are wrong then you clearly have a problem.0 -
muppeteer: I don't desire to take credit for my ethics. Doing the right thing is simply what I should be doing. It's not remarkable. Creating ethics is meaningless because what one person claims to be right is utterly irrelevant in solving ethical disputes which depend on more than one individual. Objectivity is required whether people like it or not.0
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Positivism_and_social_sciencehimnextdoor wrote: »Nonsense; in what way is biological evolution qualitatively different to sociological evolution?
Im trying to recall a quote from peter medawar n this
In the meantime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Positivism_and_social_scienceThe positivist perspective, however, has been associated with 'scientism'; the view that the methods of the natural sciences may be applied to all areas of investigation, be it philosophical, social scientific, or otherwise. Among most social scientists and historians, orthodox positivism has long since fallen out of favor. Today, practitioners of both social and physical sciences recognize the distorting effect of observer bias and structural limitations. This scepticism has been facilitated by a general weakening of deductivist accounts of science by philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn, and new philosophical movements such as critical realism and neopragmatism. Positivism has also been espoused by 'technocrats' who believe in the inevitability of social progress through science and technology.[29] The philosopher-sociologist Jürgen Habermas has critiqued pure instrumental rationality as meaning that scientific-thinking becomes something akin to ideology itself.[30]
As pointed out by Sir Peter Medawar, the distinguished British biologist who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1960, biologists who use English as a scientific language never use the word “evolution” to describe the processes of growth and development
because to do so would be confusing and misleading
Medawar, Peter, Pluto’s Republic, Oxford University Press (1982), pp. 215-216.Morality has followed an evolutionary path too; different societies evolved different moral codes through a process which is similar in character to the processes of 'speciation' that occurs in biology.
you are doint it again! no sooner has memetics been turfed ut the front door than you sneak around the back door and let it in!
You may be interested in the following
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65387773&postcount=25
http://www.cam.cornell.edu/~rclewley/jom.html
http://www.lucifer.com/virus/alt.memetics/concepts.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6566/is_1_30/ai_n28910381/?tag=content;col1
This is a much more humble approach for an academic discipline that purportedly helps us explain the very origin of culture and mind. However, it is also an approach that may yield real results--as opposed to the creation of memetic myths that have no basis in e mpirical fact and tell us nothing truthful or helpful about the origin, replication, and descent of language, mind, and culture.
When a scientist uses the word "evolution" in reference to biological evolution of a species there is a specific meaning attached to that. Social "evolution" isn't the same thing at all! Now a biologist should go to pains to point that out instead of inventing a whole new field to justify it!A kind of 'cross-pollination' can occur when when society incorporates the morality of another society into its moral framework.
Please stop the pseudo science or go with it over to the astrology and UFO forum.It can even be argued that all social animals observe a moral code within their own societies; lions and hyenas see each other as evil and lions are morally obliged to take out hyenas when they can.
Argue that with the UFO watchers too. i dont think anybody here is interested in your Doctor Doolittle fantasies.Morality isn't just a human thing, humans only apply it to humans, wolves apply it to wolves, lions to lions, etc.
apparently in your universe biology isnt just a biological thing and morality applies to animals. Maybe if you could talk to the animals you could prove it to us all?
If morality comes from God then why do lions and hyenas hate each other?
According to you. I suppose you also think snooker balls hate each other because they are always hitting each other?0 -
Thats a good question, why didn't God make us perfect instead of just good?
I don't think morality is God given, something is moral because we are human, it's more a property of being human than an imposition on humanity.
I rather think that the fact that our default moral setting allows us to pull the wings off butterflies goes to show that God has nothing to do with it.
Morality isn't intrinsic to human-nature, it is learned behaviour. It was intelligently and deductively arrived at over thousands of years of social development. If we weren't taught moral conduct then we wouldn't conduct ourselves according to morality; we would base our conduct on natural tendencies.
If morality came from God then why would we need priests to augment His work? (That is not directed at you; I'm just putting it out there.)
If God wants us to use free-will then why do priests try to influence us at all with their threats of fire and brim-stone? Why was the Inquisition implemented? These things tend to oppose free-will.
Also, it is worth remembering that under Christian doctrine, it is possible that Hitler might have avoided the fiery lake and he may reside with Jesus. Doesn't this suggest that God doesn't actually make any distinction between good and evil; that it is more important to have blind faith than a good heart?
I would suggest that morality doesn't even enter into the equation with God; that not only can God do no evil, He can equally do no good.
'Good' and 'Evil' are just dramatic terms meaning 'positive to survival' and 'negative to survival'. 'Evil' tends to lead to death and destruction and that is something to be avoided so society programs us to have an aversion to evil.
And this makes us easier to control.
So then, morality is simply an indoctrination enforced on humanity.
And God is the stick. And in nature, the one with the biggest stick is the one who is right.
Fortunately for atheists, who do operate on a moral basis, the stick doesn't exist so the priests can wave it about as much as they want. But although I have a real stick, my morality prevents me hitting priests with it.
I think it is kind of ironic that the evolutionary process that 'selected' the traits that brought about the development of science and technology is the same process that 'selected' a propensity to believe in things which just aren't true.0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement