Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 387 of 1006 (801081)
03-03-2017 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by vimesey
03-02-2017 2:46 PM


If you seek to dismiss the reality and existence of subjective morality, because it's not painted green and affixed to a pole, then you have to dismiss the reality and existence of words and languages. If subjective concepts are non-existent realities, to use your expression, how is it that we are conversing ?
Well no, here's why. Even though Modulous is a little more articulate than you make his and RAZD same mistake. By trying to compare human languages with violent human behavior, you give yourself away that you actually DONT believe morals are subjective. Certainly you wouldn't imprison someone no matter how poorly or incorrectly they used or misused the English language, but you would if they came up a put a pipe to the back of your wife's head. When you make this distinction, clear distinction between languages and human behaviors, you show that you know that some actions are absolutely Moral or immoral.
You can pretend in an argument, there is no distinction, but there will never be a time down the road where the Nazis behavior will be characterized as moral or ok
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by vimesey, posted 03-02-2017 2:46 PM vimesey has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 388 of 1006 (801082)
03-03-2017 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by RAZD
03-02-2017 3:18 PM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
Do youAGREEthat morals are subjective?YESorNO
This is like asking if I agree that things dont exist. It's a nonsensical question which requires no answer. There is no such thing as subjective, muchless subjective morality when simply describing animal or human behaviors. Since they are just biological functions, then there would be no right or wrong good or bad, moral or immoral. Since reality will not allow you a right or a wrong, in or out of the animal kingdom, reason and rational, will not allow you a morality. Your free to imagine one, but that is all it will be is your imagination
Memes and synergy are just other words to describe consciouness. Since it it clear you cannot explain how and why consciouness is here, it doubtless you can explain memes and synergy. Synergy is a word like Karma or Fate it doesn't meaning anything.
Some people ride horses, some people eat them, both consider their actions moral.
Right. Some people like talking to other people some people like killing and eating other people, this is why humans and animals cannot decide what is moral and shouldn't try. Because they end up sounding like you
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2017 3:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2017 12:11 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 393 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2017 6:16 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 394 of 1006 (801346)
03-05-2017 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by RAZD
03-03-2017 12:11 PM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
Let's start here. Your most recent post in this this thread was both comical and revealing
RAZD quotes
ObjectiveSubjectiveBased uponObservation of measurable factsPersonal opinions, assumptions, interpretations and beliefsCommonly found inEncyclopedias, textbooks, news reportingNewspaper editorials, blogs, biographies, comments on the InternetSuitable for decision making?Yes (usually)No (usually)Suitable for news reporting?Yes
Razd, if objective morals are based upon observable measurable facts, then it would follow that they exist objectively. Now get ready pay close attention. You and the others have maintained that morals do not come from anywhere outside the mind. Here, yourexample of objective morality in the area of facts comes outside the mind, doesnt work as an ACTUAL objective morality. So it would follow that either objective morality exists outside the mind, or that you are maintaining that we have a way to decide what is objective right and wrong, based on objective facts. Are you saying that clear objective facts are clearly objective moralities, now.
Next, since we know that biological realities are not moralites, just facts, according to you fellas, it would follow that what you are trying to represent as objective moralities in connection with subjective moralities, are not actually objective moralities, just objective facts. So once again, you trying to get and make a subjective morality, a morality, in reality, does not work.
Here are some examples of objective and subjective statements:
"47% of Americans pay no federal income tax. These people believe they are victims and would never vote for a Republican candidate."In this quote (which paraphrases Mitt Romney), the first statement is objective. It is a measurable fact that 47% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. However, the second statement is Romney's personal point of view and is entirely subjective.
Apple only allows apps that the company has approved to be installed on iOS devices. The company does not care about openness of their platform. Once again the first statement here is objective, while the second is subjective because fans of the company could argue, as Steve Jobs did, that iOS is indeed an "open" platform.
Notice RAZD. If it is true that 47 pay no tax, then that is a objective fact, Not a moral fact. If it is a moral fact, then you are telling me that morals exists objectively outside of our minds. If you are telling me this then, you are saying that subjective morality should be assessed against something outside our minds that is OBJECTIVE, correct?
You just gave up your whole position.
IF THERE Is an objective morality that exists outside, then my subjective imaginations of why I should not pay taxes should be based on that objective morality, which exists outside my mind, correct. If it's just an objective fact, like a tree exists, is just an objective fact, then you still have no morality, correct. Because we don't have anything to measure your subjective intimations against, correct. Which horn of the delimma would you like to adopt?
So it would appear that subjective does in fact exist, as it is defined and discussed objectively.
Or doesobjectivelikewise not exist ... ?
You do realize how insane it is to rejecteverything we knowin order to pretend that my argument is meaningless don't you?
Should I start again?
You haven't even got started as I just demonstrated. You can't define and discuss subjective without the objective. Since you have demonstrated that only objective FACTS exist, which we all know in the first place, You would need to admit that objective moralites actually exist for your subjective moralities to have any reality and meaning.
You have shot yourself in the foot with the examples and illustrations you have provided. Since morality only comes from the mind as you fellas suggest, It would follow that to try and get objective and subjective from the same source,your minds, would be nonsensical. Hey, they were your examples, not mine. Try to use examples that actually support your position not mine
Are you saying that objective facts are actually, and are indeed, objective moralites. If you are, you are now in a world of hurt from argumentation standpoint.
Do youAGREEthat subjective concepts exist?YESorNO, I'm Insane
Well of course I do, never maintained that they did not. But only if they are predicated on an objective standard. Are you now saying that objective facts are indeed objective moralities, given your illustrations.
So if it is actually true that an objective fact, that 47 percent don't pay taxes, is also a moral fact , then it would follow that objective morality exists outside of the mind. If this is not true, then we still have no way to make that which you describe as subjective morality, an actual morality. It remains as nothing more than imagination or perception.
People's opinions as to why other people don't pay taxes, are nothing more than a perception or imagination. If we say they are absolutely right or wrong for not paying, then we are saying there actually exists an abosolute morality outside of us that makes our perception valid. Sorry RAZD, you can't have it both ways.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2017 12:11 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2017 1:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 395 of 1006 (801347)
03-05-2017 11:01 AM


I will get the rest of the most recent posts to this thread later this evening. Thanks for your patience, it is greatly appreciated
Dawn Bertot

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 397 of 1006 (801432)
03-06-2017 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Tangle
03-03-2017 8:51 AM


Because, my friend, so far you have failed to provide a single example of an absolute morality. Show me one, it should be simple enough. What's the problem?
Well the problem is, that when you are presented an argument, you ignore or disregard it. Since it is clear that conscience and consciouness clearly exists, Since it is clear we as humans have a knowledge of right and wrong and animals do not. Since it is clear that we can know that something are right or wrong without being taught it, it would follow that these characteristics and realities exist actually and absolutely. Further that they came from somewhere
Since it is clear that, that subjective morality cannot be a reality due to the FACT that every person could have a different view or imagination on any single point, it therefore is nothing more than an imagination of the mind.
Since it is clear that because I can imagine things that don't actually exist, then it would follow that from a purely naturalistic standpoint, morality is just a made up word.
Since it is clear that the Socalled morality of the Atheist is a concept of the mind, it has no hope of ever establishing what is ACTUALLY right and wrong absolutely,, it would follow that any imaginations of the Atheist mind are nothing more than biological processes.
Since it is clear that Atheists admit there exists no absolute morality, it would not take a rocket scientist to know that logically, there could naturally be nothing as described as subjective morality, based on speculation and human imaginations.
Since it is clear that subjective morality is not only inconsistent in establishing what is actually right and wrong, actually, as it admits it's subjective, it would follow that it's tenets cannot and do not exist outside the human experience. This alone makes it worthless as an Actual moral.
However, since we do know these things actually exist, it would follow that only an infinte God, with a morality, the likes of which no more information could be added to his tenets, to make it more or less valid or true, only, could be an explanation for such realities. Nothing else is consistent or would make sense without these facts.
Since it is clear that that which is taught in the scripture, concerning human existence and morality is consistent with what we see in reality, it would follow that that source is reliable in not only explaining these realites, but it provides a structure for following our conscince against those teachings.
Of the only two choices, Atheism or Theism, Theism is the clear choice in explaining what see see, feel, hear and KNOW. The Socalled subjective morality cannot even get started, muchless make sense.
Yes I would say that's a valid argument, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Tangle, posted 03-03-2017 8:51 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2017 8:13 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 398 of 1006 (801433)
03-06-2017 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by New Cat's Eye
03-03-2017 10:34 AM


Re: How?
Yes, it existed. And no, its existence is not dependent upon my description. What does that have to do with what its meaning is?
Are you saying that simply its existence, itself, is its meaning? That's not what the word "meaning" means.
Well that may not be the meaning of the word meaning to you, but since these things were here before humans, they clearly did not need your description to make them, valid, good, bad, right or wrong
Since there were creatures existing before humans, there descriptions don't add to thier meaning, especially when it comes to behavior
Sure, it absolutely can.
An apple can be symbolic of many things:
the forbidden fruit of Genesis
a gift for a teacher
a computer/software company
An apple could not have meant those things before humans came along and imagined/invented them, so our imaginary descriptions are capable of giving objective things more meaning.[qs] No NCE. you miss the point. Do your imaginary applications ACTUALLY in reality make the apple more, than it ACTUALLY is. IOWs, it doesn't add to its properties to make it, itself, a happy apple for the teacher, outside your mind
So human conceptions of subjective morality don't actually add anything to human behaviors, to make them more than the the biological functions you witness. Even if they did, there would be no way to find an ACTUAL right or wrong, moral or immoral, since the first problem exists
Human imaginations don't have the power to make a thing ACTUALLY right and wrong
Or, the only way that a behavior becomes right or wrong is when us humans give it those descriptions.
Who knows?
See even you admit this fact. You do understand that saying you don't know is actually an absolute fact, correct.
Existence and reality - they are the universe. In the universe, there exists a real human. In that human there exists a real brain. In that brain exists a real mind. In that mind exists real subjective experiences. Those subjective experiences are in the universe, and the exist and are real.
Correct. But since subjective human experiences apply only to humans, they don't qualify to decide what is actually right or wrong, moral or immoral. If it's not ACTUALLY right or wrong, then human experiences are just perceptions.
There are objective facts in reality, we can imagine subjectively, but those are just more objective facts we have misrepresented or misunderstood. When we get something wrong in science, that simply means we failed at first to understand the original objective reality. Our perceptions were inaccurate, the reality didn't change.
Hence for an actual subjective right or wrong to exist in reality, it would have to be predicated by an actual right or wrong in reality, not in imaginationS Hence, this can only be found in an infinte mind. An objective reality
Hence for me to speculate about existence or reality, I would need to know absolutely that it exists. It Cleary exists ACTUALLY, so I am free to have a subjective imagination about the reality of existence. For a subjective right and wrong to exist, Actually, it would need to be predicated on an actual right or wrong, or ,it simply , can have no actual existence. It's really that simple
In fact, our ability to give meaning to our behaviors is one of the things that separates us from the other animals. It has allowed us to civilize ourselves.
Well no. If the human race were to go extinct, other life forms would arise, correct? Those life forms would not need your descriptions or meanings, to exist or have meaning. This alone should tell you that human imaginations described as morals are not an objective reality, therefore not applicable as a tool to measure what is actually right or wrong in reality. If you want to imagine that yours is actually right and wrong, your free to do so but, reason and reality say otherwise.
Do you have an example?
You said that "stealing is always wrong", but what if you need to feed a starving person and there is no other way?
Do you just discount that as not stealing? If so, then "stealing is always wrong" is just a tautology that doesn't provide us any additional information - for the question then just becomes when is it stealing and when is it not?
Well let's look at it rationally instead of onesided, which is actually subjective. Let's say you steal from a guy that was going to use that food to feed his nearly starving child. So now what do we have? In reality what we have is a subjective nothing, no actual stealing, just a bunch of things happening in a purely naturalistic enviornment. So it is evident that subjective morality becomes a nonexistent thing, something we can only imagine
So stealing has to exist objectively for it to have any meaning.
But that is objective and not comparable. Can you give an example of something else that is subjective, like morality, that already existed before humans arrived?
Yes. Lucifer said, I will ascend on high and become like the most high. His reasoning was subjective. But his reasoning was predicated against a objective morality, which demonstrated that his subjective morality was in fact wrong absolutely
But objective facts make subjective facts, so my example is comparable. If there is no objective reality there are no subjective imagined facts. If there is no objective morality, then there is no subjective morality, as per my example of stealing. In that situation both can't be wrong and or right at the same time. If that is possible, it would be logical contradiction. You do know that logical contradictions don't exist, correct? That's why they are logical contradictions
Yes, for the nthtime, that is what it means to be subjective. That is not the same as not existing. You have yet to address this point besides outright denial.
Oh I think any rational reader or observer will see that I have demonstrated in rational logical form, both in my previous posts that does mean nonexistent, as per my example of stealing, for example... if two wrongs can't actually exist in the very same situation, then that is by the very definition of nonexistent, nonexistence.
If two wrongs don't actually make a right, then only one of the fellas I'm my illustration is wrong. If neither is wrong by virtue of stealing, then wrong is just an imaginary thing, correct? Oh yeah that slight you call it subjective morality.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2017 10:34 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2017 12:16 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 399 of 1006 (801434)
03-06-2017 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Modulous
03-03-2017 1:37 PM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
I would see that one party was harmed and conclude it was immoral.
I expect you'd look to the words of Jesus or other prophets, but I also guess you'd know better than me how you would determine if the action is moral or immoral.
Well yes, by simple reasoning, but I would certainly point to the words of Jesus, since he claimed to testify the truth. The same person that said I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. Pretty bold claims for a fellow if they aren't true, correct?
But then I would also point to simple reasoning to demonstrate the fallacy of your position on the adultery situation. Since you maintain there is no absolute morality, it would follow that the action in this situation was not actually immoral just theoretically immoral. If i could find numerous people to disagree that his actions were not immoral, then we could conclude that actual immorality does in fact not exist in reality
reject an 'actual', or as everyone else calls it 'objective' morality and I am not trying trying to establish one as I think that is impossible by way of being incoherent.
So it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if it is incoherent to establish an objective morality, it would be impossible as well to establish subjective morality. If you can imagine a subjective morality, surely I can imagine an objective morality, correct? Are we both making the same mistake, or are allowed to imagine the samethings.
Not at all. They drive/guide etc., my behaviour. My behaviour is an activity in the real world. They are represented as neuronal states in my brain. They actually exist and have real application. They just don't exist outside of my brain. Round and round we go.
Oh I don't think we are going in circles, I think I am demonstrating that subjective morality as you call it goes in endless, hopeless circles with no resolution of being rational.
Not exactly. People have morals. Neither you, me, the victim or the assailant's moral is 'true'.
If that's not a TRUE statement and according to your position it may very well not be, then the opposite is true and there may exist an absolute objective morality, correct
I say that for subjective morality to exist, there must be an objective morality and that moral principle is 'true'
Now which of us is correct?
Rhetoric, modulous, is not the same as demonstrating in reality, that an imagination, which you clearly possess, is actually a moral and that it at the same time, is not 'true', by some arbitrary definition you have ascribed to True. That's just rhetoric
The only way for subjective facts to exist, is for objective facts to actually exist. The only way for subjective morality to exist is for objective morality to exist. And that is 'true' in reality, not in some imagination, or in theory.
As I have said: Fine, by your definitions. But the only actual morals exist are the ones that we have. So by my definition there are actual morals.
And as I have demonstrated your morals don't actually exist in reality in a rational way. There are nonexistent as is demonstrated by simple reasoning. Not that you can't imagine things, but they don't exist as actual right and wrong, as per the adultery example. In that situation all I would need is for another human imagining that the behavior was not immoral, as you suggested it is. And I'm sure we could find plenty of those people, correct.
If so, it would quickly be seen that your definition of moral or right or wrong are worthless in describing the ethics in human behavior and for all intents and purposes nonexistent. Yes I'm aware you can imagine things, but those aren't morals in any rational way.
By adding the comment that any persons morals are not 'true', in whatever twisted way you mean that, only heightens the nonsense of your approach to morality
Stealing to feed a starving child is morally good where there is no option to feed the child any other way.
You really don't get it do you Modulous. By your definitions of morality, there can be no definition of stealing to have any meaning in the first place. Example if there are situations where stealing is ok then that would make the word and idea nonsensical and for all purposes nonexistent. Both stealing and not stealing at the same time. If there are situations where stealing is actually wrong, that is that it is in fact stealing, that would be absolute morality. If there is not the word is useless as a moral
If there are situations, where stealing is wrong to one person but not to another, given the same instance, again we are back to the same situation, where stealing has no meaning at all. But who gets to decide whether it is or is not. Imagining that every persons imagination is acceptable is both nonsense and nonexistent.
So it seems your right back to where you started, trying to demonstrate, imaginations quality as that which is actually right or wrong. So I'm happy to do this because it narrows down exactly what is pretty much nonsense about the Socalled subjective morality
And yet you have still failed to defeat my argument in principle from evolution and mathematics described earlier. So if that is your final answer - you haven't demonstrated your claim that I can't do it since I have show in principle that I can.
I'm sorry what? Your argument from evolution demonstrated that niceness and helpful were imaginations of the human mind. If not and we are actually witnessing the evolution of morals in animals then it would follow morals exist outside the human mind. If we are doing the same things animals are, and it would seem that way, given your position, then it would seem that murder is nothing more than an imagination of the human mind
Your characterisation of what I said is irrational and dishonest.
'killing a person is wrong' is a statement that is neither true nor false.
'Mozart is the best composer' is a statement that is neither true nor false.
'Lasagne is the tastiest dish' is a statement that is neither true nor false.
Just because these statements share the property of not having a truth value, does not make them the same. Try to comprehend before you try to refute.
No I dont think I misrepresented you at all. You have a twisted version of reality and reason. You jumble these together acting as if you are making some valid point, you are not.
For example , the following verbal rubbish by yourself
Rules don't have moralities. Subjective moralities exist within a system of rules. We are constrained by our biology.
These like your statements above are what you need to demonstrate, not just assert. You keep saying these things over and over as if you have proven it. You have not, as I have demonstrated.
If rules don't have moralites, then it should be obvious that subjective morals could not assist in forming rules, because there would be nothing we could put our hand on in formulating rules. Every persons position would need to be consisdered, no matter how contradictory.
If there was no instance or example where we could clearly say yes that was murder, verses manslaughter and negligent homicide, then those terms would have no meaning either. So yes, killing a person is a statement that can be true or false. Even if we don't use the extreme of murder, a person could use the expression, yes I killed that person and it both be true and a truth statement.
The statement killing a person is wrong, can very easily be a truth statement, where objective clearly exists. It does. Asserting you believe it does not or may not doesn't demonstrate the opposite in any rational way.
The other examples don't fall into that category and you know that. Jumbling them up together to try and make subjective morality the only morality, doesn't work either.
Just because these statements share the property of not having a truth value, does not make them the same. Try to comprehend before you try to refute
Try as you will, twist it which ever way you wish with philosophical verbiage and jargon, but, your indirect attempt is to make subjective facts, where there is clearly objective realities, the same as subjective morality, where you claim there is no objective morality. It doesn't work Modulous, as I have clearly demonstrated. Subjective morality is just your imaginings. It's a claimed morality with no standards, which is nonexistent, for all intents and purposes and nonsense
Statements like, "Rules don't have moralites. Subjective moralities, exist within a system of rules.", Is just verbiage, it's what you need to prove not assert. It sounds good at first glance under further scrutiny it will be exposed.
Well yes if we are assuming strictly objective realities, but no, becauserules applied by humans do have moralities. Not because of subjective moralites, but objective. If I am tasked to take 20000 to the bank and deposit it and I keep it, then certainly that is objectively wrong, even if I am stealing it to pay for someone's surgery, that could not pay otherwise.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Modulous, posted 03-03-2017 1:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2017 2:25 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 400 of 1006 (801435)
03-06-2017 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by RAZD
03-05-2017 1:57 PM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
ood. The whole point of my post was to show that subjective concepts exist, and how subjective differs from objective: it didn't have anything to do with morality at this point, so the rest of your post is irrelevant, a waste of your time.
Okay, now the next question:
Do youAGREEthat morals are concepts?YESorNO
It seems we have to take this in baby steps ... answer just yes or no, no soap-boxing editorializing - it will be wasted time on your part, and will be ignored.
Well since I addressed most of that in my recent post to you we will wait for a response to that post.
Thats assuming you aren't the only one that gets to answer questions
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2017 1:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by RAZD, posted 03-06-2017 9:40 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 403 by ringo, posted 03-06-2017 11:21 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 413 of 1006 (801518)
03-07-2017 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by ringo
03-06-2017 11:21 AM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
I've asked you more than once to tell us theabsolutemeaning of, "Thou shalt not kill." If there are exceptions, how is it absolute?
You're free to answer that one.
Well I've answered it several times, here we go again. Just like there are objective facts in reality, there are are objective morals that exist in the infinite character of God. Hence the expression thou shalt not kill is absolute inside that context. There may be designations within that context of murder, like the purpose of sanctuary cites that God set up. But ultimately God decides whether a murder has been committed against his principle. So I don't need to know everything to know that absolute morality can and does exist. Just like I don't need to know everything to know objective facts exist and subjective imaginations in the human mind against those objective facts
Since it is clear conscience exists and consciouness is the vehicle for that reality, exclusive subjective morality, is not consistent with either reason or reality, as I have demonstrated in this thread, without fear of contradiction
That's what Dawn Bertot said, more or less, but he says it IS absolute.
If it isn't subjective morality its not an option, due to the fact that it would be a logical contradiction in the context of a purely naturalistic enviornment
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by ringo, posted 03-06-2017 11:21 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by jar, posted 03-07-2017 6:59 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 458 by ringo, posted 03-09-2017 10:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 414 of 1006 (801519)
03-07-2017 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by New Cat's Eye
03-06-2017 12:16 PM


Re: How?
What makes something good or bad if not our descriptions? Do you think things have inherent properties of goodness and badness that exist outside of our descriptions of them?
Your descriptions of making something good or bad can by nature only have application to you. Why in the world is this so hard for you too see. If your definition of good is to kill and eat an animal for your consumption, how is that good or Helpful to the animal. IOWS it should be clear, even to someone as simple as yourself, that your definition of good is so subjective and relativistic it literally makes no rational sense,and for all intents and purposes does not really exist.
Good in some form would therefore have to exist outside yourself in an objective reality, for it to be actual GOOD. You trying to describe what is actually in reality Good is nothing more than your imaginations, per the description I just gave
But that's not what you asked about. You asked if our descriptions add MEANING to those things. Meaning is not objective, it is subjective, and our descriptions do add subjective meanings to things.
Only in your mind, as per the description I just gave and a million more I could provide
contend that they do. For example, you can assault someone, that's a thing. But before we came around and described it and codified it, something like aggrevated assault wasn't a thing yet. And aggrivated assauly has more to it, that is something subjective was added to the behavior, that makes it more than just assault.
Before our conception of such a thing it did not exist.
Do you see how your examples give away the fact that you alleged meanings are nothing more that your human perceptions. Did you assault the chicken when you rung his neck then consumed him. Good can't only have meaning only in a human context, because if it does, then it's not Actual good, it's just your imaginations. Reality and reason don't care about your perceptions. If you want to imagine your are good or bad, then go ahead. Reason and reality don't actually allow it, as per my example
So no your meanings don't add anything except to your perceptions.
Subjectively right or wrong is ACTUALLY right or wrong despite not being objective.
No its not as I have just demonstrated. Just like subjective ideas need objective facts, subjective morality needs objective morality, to be actually real. My examples destroy your arguments.
Your conclusions don't logically follow from your premises, and your premises are incorrect anyways.
You're just making up this whole "must be objective" to be ACTUAL reality nonsense and you're placing yourself on a slippery slope to solipsism all in the effort to discount subjective moralities as not being real so you can claim that a naturalistic approach cannot have a morality at all.
Sorry, but your argument is ineffective and your conclusion is incorrect.
Is it possible to assault a chicken and it be GOOD for both the chicken and you, at the same time. Maybe you can explain that. You may believe you have an actual morality but reason and reality don't allow it, as I have demonstrated without fear of rebutal
But this is getting pretty laborsome to keep explaining the same things over and over to you again, all while you just go on repeating your same refuted and nonsensical conclusions without any valid arguments to back them up.
I'm loosing interest...
I never lose interest, it is very interesting watching someone that believes they ACTUALLY IN REALITY, have in reality, something that reason and reality won't actually allow. Namely, that which is Actually Good, bad, right wrong, moral or immoral. Common sense should alone tells you this, but sometimes it's necessary to set it out logically. Consistency should be a big part of reasoning out what reason and reality will allow.
Secondly, it should be obvious to any thinking person that if numerous people can have imaginations on what they indivually percieve as right or wrong on any given topic, this immediately disqualifies it as actually having the quality of Actual good or bad, in reality. Only a person not paying any attention at all, could not see this simple fact. You seem to not be paying attention.
So if 15 different people have exclusively different ideas on what is good on a specific item of human behavior, what is our criteria for deciding which one is actually good, right, wrong, etc? If we say the are all good that is nonsensical. If we say a few are RIGHT, how did we come to that conxlusion. Do the same conclusions we reach here apply to our friends in the animal kingdom, you know those other sentient beings.
Only a tyro, in elementary thinking, could not see how imaginations don't actually qualify as ACTUAL right or wrong, actually good or bad in reality. Your free to imagine anything you want, it doesn't actually make human behavior good or bad. Your just imaging that it does. Which for all intents and purposes makes a person simplistic beyond imagination
Take this load of crap for an example of why I'm going to stop trying:
Ok. Thanks for your participation.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2017 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2017 9:43 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 416 of 1006 (801521)
03-07-2017 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by Tangle
03-06-2017 12:56 PM


Re: Absolutes
You see, what's in people's 'hearts' varies between people, education levels, cultures and times.
Eating people is wrong, but only if you're not a cannibal.
I can't speak for what catholics believe only to point out they have some vary good philosophers in Catholic history. I guess you didn't pick up on your obvious irony here. Being an Atheist, a person void of ACTUAL morality and any hope of demonstrating it logically and rationally, YOU are condemning thier behavior, when you don't even have a platform from which to speak morally. I'm assuming you enjoy a basket of murdered chicken occasionally correct?
The thing is that neither you nor I could do, or would want to do, what Jack did. There's a reason for that - it's the way his brain is set-up. It's not a disease or illness it's a design flaw. His brain worked in different ways to ours - by definition.
He can't be doing wrong in the terms of your god's definition because he didn't see it as wrong, pychopaths don't, they can't. They know that society thinks it's wrong but it's not wrong in their 'hearts'. (I hate that term, it's wet, whooly and entirely inaccurate.)
Yet we can say it's absolutely wrong, diagreeing with your God.
Why is that those that require Christians to be completely logical and rational cannot do that themselves. They complan that we are simplistic and not rational. Why would you ascribe mental illness to Jack the ripper. Maybe he was just acting acting out of some anger or some other emotion. But here's where the rational part comes into play.
In a purely naturalistic enviornment Jack's actions would be no different than you running down the chicken to ring his neck. You are just imagining his actions as Wrong and yours as somehow moral.
Here's a question. What mental moral principle allows you to kill and eat the chicken, without any feeling of guilt and or immorality. I dont suppose you will answer this question in rational form, but if you wish give it a try. For good to be actually good it has to come from a source outside the human mind
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2017 12:56 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2017 11:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 424 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2017 12:33 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 417 of 1006 (801522)
03-07-2017 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by Modulous
03-06-2017 2:25 PM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
But yes, adultery is not intrinsically immoral. It does not have the objective property of 'immorality'. It is not immoral in any sense other than the one in which people think it is immoral. Any minute now you are going to stop repeating this, and move on to what you think the problem is.
Why would i need to move on to what the problem is when it's right here. Adultery cannot be actually wrong in reality, if it's only in sense which people think it's immoral. That s called imagination Modulous not Actual immorality. If numerous people have numerous views on the very same subject, ie adultery as right or wrong, then that's nothing real just a bunch of imaginations.
You have yet to set out logically why this is not the case. If you are agreeing with me, then it would follow you are incorrect?
There is no objective way an apple tastes, but there is a subjective way an apple tastes. There is no objectively superior musician, but some people prefer one musician over another.
But Modulous you are shooting yourself in the foot, with your own words. The objective to your subjective taste, is taste itself. So if there is an subjective taste it is predicated by an actual thing called taste correct. Same with music.
So how will you have a subjective morality without an actual existent objective morality. If everything we see and know subjectively is predicated by the objective, why would you assume your subjective is not. But it should be obvious that if we are speaking in purely naturalistic terms, then , just the varying imaginations of humans would disqualify it as anything than more than an imagination
So where is the objective in reality to make your subjective a reality
You are comparing oranges with apples,, no pun intended. You know instinctively that stealing is wrong and lying is wrong. You know this by that which was put there by God. However, you know also instinctively that preference is not category of right and wrong, but just a preference. This same information was put there by an infinite objective being.
And if you could show that to be true, you win the argument.
I just did.
And I reject your idea of morals and prefer to use a useful one that describes the ethics in human behaviour.
Fortunately my concepts of morals are reason and reality based, yours are imaginations and perceptions
No matter how much equivocation you want to play, behavioural strategies exist. Opinions exist. Opinions about behavioural strategies exist. Behavioural strategies both evolve and are learned. The one informing or constraining the other. Instead of trying to reword my position in a silly way, you should probably deal with my actual argument which would involve reading and understanding it. So far you understand that subjective morality is not objective morality. You just need to understand where subjective moralities come from in my position - rather than relying on over-simplification to the point of strawmanning my position.
So, in my position, where do subjective moralities come from? I've said it often enough, this should be an easy one.
Arguing that subjective morals coming from and evolved brain and a sense of behavioral cooperating in nature is not the same as demonstrating that subjective morality exists in reality. The same natural process that gave you this alleged morality, should help you demonstrate and set out in a rational way that it actually exists. That's not happening. Perhaps more evolution of your brain is required.
Hold on for this very obvious irony that I think you are missing. It's ironic that you claim that your subjective morals come from natural processes, because, Now Watch. The very subjective morals you claim came from that process DON'T APPLY to those poor creatures. Now that's an irony or inconsistent, isn't it. Perhaps again more evolution of the brain is required to make sense of you doctrine
Yes Modulous I understand what you are arguing,from your ilustrations, it's just that they make no rational sense in reality. But to be fair to me and the audience, please just put your best line or argument from that material out and we will see if I haven't responded to it in a rational way.
mean that in the same way you mean it.
You think the statement 'stealing is wrong' is an objectively true statement, right? That its true regardless of anybody's opinion about the matter, right? It's true in the same way 'the sky is blue' or 'this apple weighs 420g' or any other factual statement might be true.
I don't. It's not difficult.
Oh well we should all close up shop because some guy from England has decided that the statement, stealing is wrong is not an objectively true statement. Of course I believe it's an objectively true statement, that's my position in this whole context. Logically and rationally stealing would have no meaning, if the there was no standard by which to measure it. That's called situation ethics. There is no such animal. You are faced with the horrible conclusion that every person and every persons imaginations about what stealing might be, Could ACTUALLY BE CORRECT, or incorrect at the same time
Modulous, factual statements are always true if they are factual. That would make them an objective reality. Things exist, is an actual factual objective reality. My perceptions of how and why may be Wong or misguided, but it doesn't change the reality.
So when I have an omnipotent, omniscient, morally absolute being saying thou shalt not steal, then that statement is an objectively true statement. There could be no instance where it becomes right or moral. My imaginations to the contrary. Lying is always wrong because it is against or in opposition to the absolute truth. Other wise the statement, thou shalt not lie or bare false witness has no meaning in reality
Aside from this usage in a purely naturalistic existence it can have no actual existence, if it is just a product of everyone's imaginations, as to what constitutes stealing. A whole bunch of different views on the same topic don't make it a reality, it makes it a joke.
Cooperative strategies can exist without minds.
Our opinion of whether they are moral or not cannot.
We can witness non cooperative strategies in nature as well, if i wish to describe them as such, that doesn't make them wrong or bad, just junk happening. Your OPINIONS about them being moral or immoral are just that, opinions. Nothing more. Oh well wait we could call them imaginations, right
I think I've been most kind to you regarding your grammatical problems and limited vocabulary. I assume English is ot your first language, or perhaps you have a thought disorder. Neither is a reflection on your personally so I try not to be insulting about it. However, if you want to sink deeper into the quagmire of mean-spiritedness I will call you out on it each time.
Really!!!!!!!!!!!!? so what would it be like here if you guys here werent meanspirited? Worse? Wow.
But by all means, we can all grow and learn as we go along, as long as you are willing to do the same correct. But it sounds as if you are stuck on yourself, but I could be wrong. But by all means proceed, no one likes laughing at himself more than me.
Thisisa philosophical debate Dawn. But no. My position is that objective facts lead to subjective beings who have subjective opinions about things, including what is moral and what is immoral.
And this is,I maintain and have seen no evidence to the contrary, is a logical impossibility. You can't get ethics or morals from biological processes, that aren't going to be anything but irrational, inconsistent subjective, relative and therefore nothing more than imaginations. An imagination of stealing something will never be stealing, in a purely naturalistic enviorment, who's main tenet is survival of the fittest
If it's possible to establish somethings rationally, then we should be able to establish that subjective morals are something more than imaginations. Since they are steeped in the irrational and hopelessly inconsistent, then it would follow they don't actually exist, correct? For something to be irrational, then there must exist the rational correct? So no objective morality, then logically no subjective morality. That makes perfect sense.
It's not intended to. But all you've done is assert your beliefs about objective morality without demonstrating it in any rational way. If that's all you have, you aren't in a position to refute my position.
Well this is just dishonest. Don't mean to be unkind, but I have done it more than a few times. You disagreeing is not the same as proving I haven't atleast set it out in a rational way
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2017 2:25 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2017 9:26 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 425 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2017 1:24 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 434 of 1006 (801581)
03-08-2017 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 418 by RAZD
03-07-2017 9:26 AM


Re: Crickets? Unwilling or Unable to answer?
If you have enough time to write other posts you have enough time to answerYESorNO, so that should mean only Unwilling to answer ...
Well I was actually giving you time to respond to my last extensive post to yourself, I was giving you the moral obligation to respond to the arguments I set out. But of course, if forgot that u fellas have subjective morality, which means you make up your rules as you go along. So instead of answering my response to the question you ask me, you ask me yet another question. ,let's not forget about the last post I made to you, before we get to far out alright.
No I do not agree that morals are concepts, because concepts or imaginations do not have the ability to create something that does not already exist. Calling it a moral is just another way of describing imaginations. This of course is if we are talking about a purely naturalistic enviornment. Even if I did agree they were, they would be hopelessly lost in irrational inconsistency to qualify as any kind of standard to be described as morality.
So now I have answered your second question, please go backwards and answer my previous post.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2017 9:26 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2017 7:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 435 of 1006 (801583)
03-08-2017 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by New Cat's Eye
03-07-2017 9:43 AM


Re: How?
Yeah, I just wish that you would have participated. Instead, you just repeated the same old refuted nonsense over and over again.
It's too bad you were unable to move the discussion forward in any way.
From the OP until now, your point been the same: morality must be objective and it cannot be subjective.
Unfortunately for you, you have been able to convince exactly nobody, and you've been unable to provide a valid argument for your case.
In spite of repeated attempts to make progress in the discussion, you have simply repeated your same position in different words - and trashing the English language in the process.
It is sad you cannot see an argument when it is presented to you. So while you are going out the door, so to speak, I'll try it again. Consciousness and conscience clearly exist. Since they do, there must be a source from which they are derived. I have demonstrated it is impossible to have subjective realites without objective realites. Hence it would follow that anything described as a moral in a subjective way, would of course require an objective moral.
Secondly I demonstrated there is no way to make that which proceeds from Soley the imagination, actually real, in reality. If there is only one thing I can imagine that is not real as a result of the imagination, then it would follow that all that comes from the imagination, is in reality not real
Thirdly. I demonstrated that even if one imagines that the things in the imagination as real, they have no hope of ascribing any meaning to physical properties, that property does not already possess.
Fourthly I demonstrated that even if one imagines that perception are real because they exist in our minds, they are hopelessly lost in establishing any standard of morality, subjective or otherwise, due to the fact that they are quagmired in hopeless inconsistency, relating to both the human species and the animal kingdom. Hence, now watch, you are right back to the problem of them being nothing more than imagination
Fithly, I demonstrated that while one can imagine that which is irrational, one cannot imagine that which is a logical impossibilty. Hence, while one can imagine a subjective morality, that which is irrational, without objective morality, one could not imagine and demonstrate logically that an actual subjective morality exists, in reality, which is in actuality, a logical impossibilty, without the existence of an objective morality.
So while on can imagine that which is irrational and or improbable, one cannot ever imagine a logical impossibilty. A subjective morality, without the need for an objective morality, is a logical impossibility. It's just an imagination of the irrational
Since, however, we know that consciouness and conscience do exist, it follows that they cannot come from an strictly, Atheistic, Naturalistic enviornment. This is a logical impossibilty, given thier contentions.
Hence, thier source must come from a source outside the strictly Naturalistic enviornment. Theism provides and explains, and is consistent with the existence of consciouness and conscience. It explains this in a rational way, that is free of speculation or conjecture. Further the Judeo-Christian doctrines as contained in the bible, explain in detail, that only an infinte God, infinte in wisdom can make sense of morality, whether in a objective or subjective manner.
Further those scriptures, give specific detail of how the mind, conscience and objective morality work in harmony, to make what we see, feel and know, consistent, with what we see in reality. It provides a platform for the obvious existence of morals
Further, it expalins, why we know somethings instinctively, ie, that muder, stealing and lying are always wrong. It explains that these things are there as a result of an intrinsic law God had previously put inside of man. Hence the scriptures correspond to what we see in reality.
Further, they explain what we already know, that truth is knowable. Since it is possible to come to Truths by using critical thinking pitted against realites, truth is obviously knowable. The scriptures tell that truth is knowable. Hence, the scriptures correspond to what we see and know in reality. And the human existence
Hence, Theism and the scriptures provide a framework, that explains in detail, what is rationally knowable and it is consistent with what we, see, feel, know and can experience In the real world.
On the other hand, Atheism, has no hope of explaining these things, in any rational manner, as I have demonstrated. Notice I said in a rational way, not just based on thier faulty perceptions.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2017 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-08-2017 9:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 436 of 1006 (801584)
03-08-2017 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Tangle
03-07-2017 12:33 PM


Re: Absolutes
But nobody but a loon would equate the actions of Jack the Ripper with the actions of someone that enjoys a KFC. We are carnivores, carnivores eat meat. God made us that way according to you. (Strictly speaking we're omnivores but the point still stands.)
So where do you think that gets you?
Really Tangle, temper, temper. You really should stop being emotional and stay logical. I said you have no RATIONAL way of explaining Fred's behaviors as immoral or moral. For all the arguments I have now set out, I've demonstrated that subjective morality is irrational and nonsensical. Therefore you have no way of showing in a rational form that Fred's behaviors are different than your desires for murdered chicken. Try responding in a rational way, to my arguments and put your childish, spoiled brat temper aside
The fact that our biology allows it and at most points in our development has required it. If I was a herbivore I wouldn't eat chicken.
Now what's really interesting is that I can imagine a time in the future where killing and eating animals will be regarded as immoral. We will grow our protein in vitro. Our view of what's moral in our food will have changed.
Well by geroge, I think he is starting to get it. And they said miracles have ceased. Now tangle, take the argument outside yourself and stickly your imaginations. Try and think critically. Truth whether you believe it or not exist outside your individual mind.
Now, YOU have an imagination that down the road, thus and so. So if we think critically we can see that every person could have an imagination, even presently, that Fred's behaviors are not immoral, some may some may not. Hence it follows absolutely that perceptions and or imaginations are not actually, in reality, morals, because there is no way of knowing WHO is correct, right or wrong, correct?
You see there is a rational way to know that atleast some things are correct, correct? It's possible for me to know that subjective moralities are hopelessly inconsistent and irrational, therefore incorrect. If that is true, which it is, it would follow that you don't actually have a moral, you have perception of something you describe as a moral., but it doesn't work in a rational way
It further follows logically that there is no rational way to have an actual morality, described as subjective, if the objective does not exist. Now watch, I didn't set this out by mere perceptions, but rather by critical thinking, which is possible in reality outside myself or any person, correct.?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2017 12:33 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Tangle, posted 03-08-2017 8:26 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024