Underlying Philosophy

Plenty of people have gone the 'strictly there is no underlying philosophy' route. I agree with them.So let me try and answer your question from different angles.Have you ever asked yourself why it might be a good idea to disbelieve someone that tells you they own the Brooklyn Bridge and want to sell it for $5k scrap value?It's because if you genuinely believed them, you'd be mad not to give them your money.But why is that a problem? It's a problem because the chances are, you've just lost $5k. Why? Because the chances are the person doesn't own Brooklyn Bridge.If we had a sci-fi device that proved beyond any doubt that the person was NOT deliberately stating a falsehood - would you give him the money? You'd still be foolish: He could be a madman, deluded into thinking he owns the bridge, but doesn't. Or maybe for some reason not related to mental health, he believed he owned the bridge. Maybe he is hypnotized, or drugged, or maybe he was raised by eccentrics who used the fact that kids believe their parents readily to convince their child of a falsehood. Maybe those parents were raised by eccentric people that did likewise.When it comes to a claim, there are more ways the claim could be false than true so we need someway of ascertaining the truth to the statement. We need an epistemological model that can be consistently applied to discriminate between true claims and false ones.Atheism is one consequence among many of adopting certain epistemological models and applying them as consistently as possible. So generally speaking, when a person claims 'God exists', an atheist does not find the support for that statement to be sufficient to be accepted. Similarly, they find support lacking for unicorns, goblins, domovoi, djinn, ancestor spirits, telepathy, psychic healing, transcendent beings of love that are the ground of all being...The models generally applied include the demand for independent lines of evidence that cohere upon the truth regarding the claim. No.Atheism is not the starting point, it is a conclusion.Logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, morality -- they are all arrived it in different ways. Epistemology is usually an important starting point, just because without knowing how you can say if you know something, it's difficult to establish if you know a logical proposition is true. And epistemology will generally guide opinions on metaphysics, ontology and ultimately morality.This is an ideal path - but most people are born as children and have metaphysics and ontology spoon fed to us and this early learning tends to 'colour' the exploration of epistemology. Instead of asking 'How do I know that what I think I know is true?', an explorer might be tempted to ask 'How do I know that God exists?' and try to develop an epistemology that answers that question rather than the more primal question. More fundamentally, how have you arrived at the conclusion that God must necessarily govern the universe in order for these things to arise? 'From' and 'where' are words that make a lot of assumptions. Second you insist that they are 'abstract entities'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'abstract entity'. I believe morals exist, because I have observed them, and so have others. There are numerous independent lines of evidence that demonstrates that morals exist.As for the laws of logic? They seem to exist. I observe that the statement that an entity can not simultaneously be and not be is consistent with what I have observed about reality, and what others have observed. Bizarre quantum interpretations aside So I believe these things exist, because I observe them to be consistent with each other, with my experiences, with reported experiences of others, they form a coherent picture and assuming them to exist has great pragmatic value.

I assume you arrived at that conclusion by using your senses to gain information about science, then using a certain of reasoning, logic etc to advance towards arriving at said conclusion.So you used a method which you suggest has a major problem of subjectivity involved to arrive at a subjective conclusion about the failings of the method you used to reach the conclusion.The problem is: All epistemological methods suffer from the 'problem of subjectivity'. It seems foolish to criticise one on that basis. Especially when you are using it to criticise it!!

And empirically gained facts. Sounds again like empiricism plus logic. I am assuming that you do not mean that literally since it is trivially false as demonstrated by Dr A and Betrand Russell.So I think you mean that an atheist can provide no explanation as to the reliability of logic or something akin to that. My response to that is that if the atheist cannot, neither can the theist. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.You see - you cannot create a logically sound epistemology without starting from the assumption that one can use logic. So one can't use an epistemological method to ascertain the truth behind any claim about the 'origins' of logic or the like.One might be able to argue that logic is merely a generalised empirical/descriptive pursuit in the first place...but that argument gets fairly esoteric and is probably not worth pursuing at this stage. The scientific method utilises logic both deductive and inductive and it specifies a certain type of evidence gathering so that strict logic can be applied to reach confident conclusions.You are using evidence and logic too, just not the highly refined and strict standards that science generally demands. And you have reached this conclusion using a method that is coloured by the biases of man too. You realize that ALL epistemological methods suffer from this? You remember that was the point I was raising that you claim to be address? Yes, obviously. That is why the scientific method has openly embraced the principle of fallibilism. But it is also true of EVERY SINGLE method out there. The difference is that the scientific method takes steps to ameliorate these biases, even to the point of studying them to understand them more accurately.Can you tell me of an epistemological method that does better in this regard? And this is true of other methods - and science has internal mechanics to help detect when this occurs and try and correct for it. Agreed, which is exactly why science makes extensive use of logic, brutally applying it at all times.But logically sound conclusions can still be false. The only way we can tell if it is true or false is to check to see how it corresponds with reality.If all swans I have ever seen are white, then all swans are white.
All swans I have ever seen are white.
Therefore, all swans are white.Perfectly logically sound conclusion. But is it true that my subjective experiences can be extrapolated to a universal statement of truth like that? The only way to know is to test my experiences of swans against reality. It turns out that it is logically sound but false.Do you really think pure logic can get us answers which we can say are true? If so - how do you know that this is true?Edited by Modulous, : added something to end and a bit to the start.

I exist.
Contradictions are impossible.
My mind can know the truth.Don't believe something is true that which cannot be demonstrated is true.You can demonstrate truth by showing how it is consistent with itself, it is coherent with other known truths, it has correspondence with accessible experience, that it leads to reliable practical applications. So essentially rational empiricism. Show me the evidence and provide me with a rational explanation that leads from the evidence to the conclusion, and we can talk about how confident we are in light of something so important it requires its own line to highlight it:-the principle of fallibility. It has yet to be demonstrated :a) That God exists
b) What properties God has.
c) What capacities God has.
d) What God has done.Believing in God is not sufficient grounds to demonstrate its truth - as can be demonstrated by showing people that believe God does not exist. Since one of them is wrong - belief alone is insufficient. And if Bob said: Fairies exist.
And I said: Do they, how do you know?
And Bob said: I believe it is true very strongly. My parents believed it. My culture has believed it for thousands of years. Believing it makes me feel good. How can we explain how plants can grow without being eaten by predators without fairies? Why are plants so pretty if not for the artistry of fairies? Why do some things, when eaten allow you to see the spirit world where fairies are more common?
I would reply: That doesn't persuade me that fairies exist. Can you prove fairies exist in the same sense you can prove rats exist? Don't forget the part about ignoring what people say in contradiction to this. And you must definitely never mention that with God as the foundation, you just end up with no reason either - just a set of arbitrary instructions that must be carried out on pain of torture (and with treats for doing well). You could try it if you like. I'm betting your life will be less pleasant as a result. They have the death penalty in your State, right?That's right - an appeal to consequences. Exactly the same way a God based morality ultimately is. I wonder which one adheres to the principle of parsimony?

That which is true.I don't know if my mind contains only truths, and it probably doesn't. But in order to get anywhere in learning the truth we have to assume that our minds are capable of knowing truth. If it is not capable then anything else that follows as far as seeking the truth is concerned, is useless folly. Yes - and I used your example to explain my point. Is that problematic? Well - if I thought they were good reasons, then presumably I wouldn't be arguing with Bob to begin with. I'd be agreeing. I was just giving some hypothetical reasons for believing in fairies based upon my experience with the kinds of reasons people give for believing in things. I was assuming the reasons were good enough to be persuasive to some people, but not to me. Needless to say - I find them as equally compelling as the ones for the fairies.But you were asking about my philosophy as an atheist right, and not just using that as a springboard to talk some more about your own? No. It's one reason. And one which ultimately underlies all others (as far as a rough retort can encapsulate the concept). What do you mean 'be okay'. I think not caring how pleasant your life is is far from being 'okay'. It's very dangerous. And it's a state of mind that people have no doubt been in when committing both atrocities and heroic deeds.Do I condone all of the actions of people that disregard the negative consequences of their actions upon their own wellbeing? No.You asked for a reason not to murder - I cited a reason not to murder. If you don't care about any given reason or set of reasons, then I lack the power to prevent you from murdering, if murdering is your desire, save physical intervention. Why would we care to do that? For what reason? I think so, yes. And despite his typically arrogant opinion on his insights into theology, it is not for them that we celebrate his genius. I fail to see how telling me about the additional entities you are invoking to explain morality should convince me of the parsimony of your position. So you say. But I say that it has basis, the basis looks basically the same as the theistic account, and requires less entities to get to, meaning the extra entities are essentially unnecessary and can therefore be cut away for the sake of parsimony. No - it simply gives a reason as to why people call things right and wrong while also explaining why they disagree over this property without invoking a God, a sin concept that 'blinds us', and a Law.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hi Pluto, It is my subjective opinion on what is okay and what is not okay, so in a sense it is an arbitrary judgement - but then sac did ask me to arbitrate on the 'okayness' of a hypothetical serial killer. I prefixed it with "What do you mean 'be okay'?" just in case we weren't talking about my judgement on the matter. I then gave another clue that this was a personal subjective arbitrary judgement: I started the sentence, "I think".And then I gave at least one reason that I think this (it is dangerous). Is there any reason that you want more? I agree that what consequences follow would depend on the circumstances. That doesn't support your concept of it being 'a dangerous game'. You should probably have shown that humans don't universally act according to consequentialism as per the famous trolley car thought experiment. And why does the brutal dictator do that? Is it at least partially because he is free from the consequences (ie he can do so with impunity)? This supports my position that consequences are important to whether or not you decide to murder and if you take them away (or take away the 'caring about the consequences') - bad things can often follow. Agreed. And that's what we so often find happens isn't it? Exactly. And the lesson here? If we want humans to not commit rape - we have to come to a widespread agreement to enact negative consequences on those that rape. I believe there have been some surveys carried out where young men were asked if they could get away with it completely, would they rape someone and a large number of them said 'yes'.

Hi sac,
I just realized I missed a bit out in my earlier reply. I thought the answer was self evident, but I have reassessed that you would see it that way. What inherent properties murder has, depends on what you mean by murder. If you are defining murder as wrongful killing then murder is inherently wrong.However, if you define murder as unlawful killing, then murder is not inherently wrong. It is, on the other hand, inherently illegal.Whether or not there should be more to it is a value judgement. Is there more to it than the conscious consideration of consequences? Sure - there is the unconscious consideration of consequences...your brain is hardwired to not rampantly kill people in your group. You have been brought up as a Christian that presumably believes all humans are one group and that murdering them is wrong. There are consequences for killing people in your group - not just from other members of your group, but by weakening the strength of the group you risk ruin for yourself. It stands to reason that such a strategy would not outcompete strategies of non-murderous solidarity.And that's an incredibly rough account of some of the reasons you don't want to kill me.

What is your standard for determining that which is true?

Within reasonable limitations imposed by fallibility, a variant on rational empiricism.

So is that a presupposition of sorts?

It is one of the primary truths. In order to question its truth, you first have to assume it is true.

So let's have some other reasons then, as to why certain things (such as murder) are wrong.

Because Dave said so. Because, in aggregate, engaging in murder has a negative impact on reproductive fitness. Because we define murder as being wrong.

I said: as we become closer and closer to God (or, "sanctified"). As we become more sanctified, we begin to see the universe more on God's terms, and better understand the "big picture", which has God as the ultimate source of everything (Col. 1:16-17), so that we live thereby (Rom. 10:5). This is a sort of "undermining" or "obliteration" of our sin nature (Rom. 6:18).

And why would we want to do that? Sounds like there is some kind of reward (better understanding and undermining sin nature), but you deny that so it must be something else.

I invoked one entity: God.

You invoked God, his character, the Law and Sin.I didn't need any of those.

I don't know about you, but Huntard's reason for morality is a complex web of inter-woven experiences that somehow combine to form arbitrary and ambiguous standards and morals that he follows.

Sounds like the world we live in: full of grey areas and difficult moral quandaries.

And you yourself said that there are multiple reasons for why one should be moral.

Not why we should be, why we are. We are socially programmed to act certain ways and we are biologically adapted to act in certain ways. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Depends how we define 'atrocity'. If atrocity is defined as being 'grossly immoral acts' then of course it was inherently wrong. Otherwise, no, they were not inherently wrong regardless of consequences. The morals I think you are referring to are the rationalisations for our sense of morality which are based on culture and upbringing. Biological and social conditioning. Because despite the conditioning, there are also other forces in play that can mean someone thinks murder is a viable option. If the conditioning isn't enough then other things are brought into play (ie., deterrents for murdering and rewards for not murdering). Because I have to live along with them. And so do you. And so we, along with others, all agree that enacting consequences is a good idea (we do seem to have a biological disposition towards punishing transgressors (much like other social animals often do), so don't take my words to mean humans literally sat down and reasoned this out).Humans have a brain which allows for reflective thinking. So we noticed we behaved in a certain way (punishing transgressors) and some of them reflected on this and asked "Why do we do that?", early answers were "The gods commanded it." but other thinkers have refined that a bit more as the body of thinking and the body of evidence has accumulated). No. It's just something I don't want other people to do and if they do it, I want them to be punished becausea) I have an instinctual desire for vengeance
b) I want to rationally discover optimum methods for reducing my risk (and my families/allies risk) of being murdered. Game Theory seems like a good tool to use to help us find optimum methods in so far as we assume everybody acts rationally.

The 'wrongful' bit makes it inherently wrong.It's a bit like asking

quote:

---

What is it about a "leftward turn" that makes it inherently towards the left?

---

A complex question of political philosophy. Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau are possible sources for answering that question. See The Social Contract for a start. It's not inherently wrong. Unless you are a consequentialist, of course. Correct. A meaningless tautology, yes? A paradox: Murder necessarily has the consequence of my death.But let's imagine it was true... No. Yes. See: Moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain, Jorge Molla, and Ricardo de Oliveira-Souza - Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2007, Pages 319-321FRONTOPOLAR AND ANTERIOR TEMPORAL CORTEX ACTIVATION IN A MORAL JUDGMENT TASK, Jorge Moll, Paul J. Eslinger, Ricardo de Oliveira-Souza, Arq. Neuro-Psiquiatr. vol.59 no.3B So Paulo Sept. 2001 Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements , Michael Koenigs, Liane Young, Ralph Adolphs, Daniel Tranel, Fiery Cushman, Marc Hauser & Antonio Damasio - Nature 446, 908-911 (19 April 2007)Morals and the human brain: a working model, Moll, Jorge; de Oliveira-Souza, Ricardo; Eslinger, Paul J. Neuroreport:
3 March 2003 - Volume 14 - Issue 3 - pp 299-305:

quote:

---

Morality has been at the center of informal talks and metaphysical discussions since the beginning of history. Recently, converging lines of evidence from evolutionary biology, neuroscience and experimental psychology have shown that morality is grounded in the brain. This article reviews the main lines of investigation indicating that moral behavior is a product of evolutionary pressures that shaped the neurobehavioral processes related to the selective perception of social cues, the experience of moral emotions and the adaption of behavioral responses to the social milieu. These processes draw upon specific cortical-subcortical loops that organize social cognition, emotion and motivation into uniquely human forms of experience and behavior. We put forth a model of brain-behavior relationships underlying moral reasoning and emotion that accommodates the impairments of moral behavior observed in neuropsychiatric disorders. This model provides a framework for empirical testing with current methods of neurobehavioral analysis.

---

That should demonstrate your main contention that the brain is not the source of your moral decisions to be a hasty one. As for in-group out-group behaviour I'll leave that as an exercise for the student. Let me reword that to make more consistent sense.

quote:

---

So is there a limit to what value judgments my brain can make?

---

I would presume so. For instance my grandfather's brain almost certiainly never made value judgements on file-sharing of mp3s. I'm sure your brain will never make value judgements about more things than it does make value judgements about. I don't know at what point during the brain's development that kind of moral decision making is possible. Given what studies I have seen into moral development in children it is entirely feasible that a baby has not yet fully developed a moral differentiation between in and out groups.

quote:

---

rampant: Occurring without restraint and frequently, widely, or menacingly

---

Through variation and natural selection. Not all animal brains do it - so it is not a necessary state of affairs.Butif there are reproductive advantages to acting in cooperation with a close family member.
and
if there is variation in cooperativeness among the population
then we might expect those that cooperate more to 'out-reproduce' those that cooperate less if all other things are equal.And you know this is true - because 'aggression' is a trait that dogs have that breeders are aware of and attempt to breed in the desired direction. Simply interrupting the biochemical pathways to adrenaline production can reduce aggression which allows for even inadvertent cooperation. Yes they are. What makes you think that other primates engage in and are not bothered by rampant killing? Why orangutans? Have you recently read Murders in the Rue Morgue or something? Intraspecific killing does occur in these species, but as far as I know it is predominantlya) Former alpha males who are toppled from power
b) Loners
c) Members of other groupsIe., mostly outgroups.There is often aggression and sometimes violence within a group - especially over hierarchical ranks and mating rights (which are two concepts often linked)...but that's true of humans too. I'm not sure why you think it is a bad thing. If murder is 'wrongful killing' then yes, you would. You'd just rationalise it differently and possibly have different views on what killing comes under the category: 'wrongful'.

---

Have you given up trying to demonstrate that your moral philosophy does not end up in essentially the same place?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

My position: There are moral absolutes. But two people can hold contradictory but absolute moral positions. Neither is objectively 'true'. Which might be true - if I was also conceding objective moral truths. Moral relativism is best used descriptively rather than normatively. And I have no moral issues with your belief in moral absolutes. You don't. Observing the spectrum of moral positions in the world should oblige you to accept it as a description. Then you live in a society that accepts those things. You can try and persuade your fellows to change - if you do not accept them. You don't. You just have to muddle through as best you can and judge others on their intentions (where confidently accessible) as well as their acts. I personally feel that it is good. Others agree with me therefore we try and structure our interactions so as to promote it. Rational empiricism. We look at the world and make conclusions about it. If they do what we think is evil, then we know it must be dealt with. Punishment is one option that springs very quickly to mind isn't it? If it isn't dealt with, everyone's happiness is in danger of plummeting as repeat offences occur. If there is a grey area - it's because human interactions are complex things. Those that claim the solution to a sticky moral quandary that affects thousands of people is simple and clear need to have very fine reasons for doing so.

quote:

---

Because an unobservable entity in an unobservable place created everything and it said we must not use condoms.

---

Is not sufficient. Yes - but this tells us nothing about what is right or wrong without making epistemological claims about an unobserved entity in an unobserved realm.

No worries. The board's been down for most of it anyway I doubt you can prove that statement. What can be shown is that a moral absolute might be objectively true. But standard moral philosophy separates objectivity of moral proposition and its absoluteness.

quote:

---

A car is a receptacle for drinking, is transparent, dreams of shoes every tuesday and is sufficient proof for the non-existence of God

---

Is an absolute statement.

quote:

---

Killing a burgler is immoral because there is a conflict of interest when a victim acts as a judge.

---

Is an absolute moral principle.Are they objectively true? Where you conflate objectivity and absolutivity - you'd be right. But the two properties are not necessarily linked. No - it doesn't come under any standard wording of any philosophy work I've ever read. It seems unique to you and a few other religious minds that have difficulty understanding different moral schema. It is my opinion that your views are not important when it comes to morality, your actions are what I care about mostly. Murder is by definition immoral - whereas viewpoints are not by definition immoral. Only if your viewpoint necessarily leads to an action that could be 'destructive'. It isn't necessarily so. We'd need evidence to establish this since it would be an empirical claim. It might not be - it depends on the viewpoint, and the method of teaching it.I think, for example, teaching children that jews are wicked and that it is good to kill yourself if it means killing several jews - is potentially worse than killing a single jew if the teaching is likely to cause multiple people to die. It would be an empirical claim - so it requires evidence and reason to demonstrate it. By definition, it wouldn't be.But I don't hold that society is the final arbiter and True Authority of morality. Because I don't accept that there is an objective morality. Society would be the authority on society's morality. Lord over the universe? No. Capable of understanding some of it? Yes. Capable of understanding basic principles of interaction between other human minds? Certainly, in many cases. You asked me why I thought "human happiness" was good - so obviously the answer is going to be mine, and thus self-centred. If you wanted a non self-centred answer you should probably have worded the question in a way that makes that clear.Human happiness is not objectively 'good'. Wrong according to what? Me? You? The Koran? My moral system is based on observing humanity and deciding how I want to socialise. If you have any specific questions about my reasoning behind any specific moral question I'd be happy to give it. At the moment though we are talking in generalities. Sorry if that is too 'vague'.If you're going to try and understand philosophies different from your own - you're going to have to learn to ask the right questions I guess.I think humans are a social animal and has hardwired feelings about each other that fit into two broad categories "with me" and "against me". We have a built in ability to make judgements about fairness - because we cooperate but we need to prevent 'cheaters' so we need to detect 'cheating' (taking help and giving none). This, ultimately governs our opinions about morality.As time has gone one - and social groups have increased in size, ever more complex rationalisations and principles have been developed to cope with situations our biology has not equipped us with to intuitively grasp (or to highlight how our moral intuitions like our optical system can be fooled or confused and develops strategies for coping with this failing).I hold certain things as right and wrong - but I change my views based on reasoned arguments based on certain principles and logical points. I unfortunately cannot point to some written in stone moral guideline to provide answers and I feel that trying to prove that something that is written in stone (or clay or paper) has the final word on how we should structure our interactions to obtain the ends that we desire.It means I sacrifice the feeling of comfort that "There's a right answer to this problem." and that I know what it is. But it makes me more flexible for coping with rapid social changes than a religious view which can often get entangled with new social structures by insisting slavery or miscegenation are Truly and eternally Good or homosexual sex is eternally wicked.Of course, the absolutist, objectivist position does change with the times - but gradually; it is conservative and obviously resistant to change. Instead of one person changing their minds over time, it becomes a child taking a slightly different view than their parents and slowly the living opinions of morality change that way. That is what I am saying. Correct. And my position is that so are yours. It isn't just from 'the self' - except in the fact that the 'self' gets its morals from other sources (books, parents, society etc). No. It destroys the concept that right and wrong are objective. Edited by Modulous, : added bits to try and avoid charges of 'vagueness'.

Everybody thinks everybody else's moral system is inferior to their own - otherwise they'd adopted someone else's. So don't read anything into that. You are at odds with most other theists that believe that the evidence of God comes from a personal relationship based on their own experience (naive empiricism is the idea that "immediate sense experience is by itself sufficient to provide the foundations for knowledge" - that is 'you "feel" God's presence and you experience a personal relationship with him and the word of the Holy Bible, which is your rock). So no - empiricism isn't at odds with God. It is only at odds with a God that cannot be felt or experienced in any way. Yahweh - it is not at odds with.Paul, for example, had an empirical episode on the road to Damascus...and then applied reason to that episode and built his theology parts of which he wrote down and survived till today.The difference between Paul and I is that I draw upon a wider basis of empirical episodes that Paul did. So do I. Naive empiricism could have us believing that illusionists are supernatural. No. No I wouldn't. I'd say the only truths we can have confidence in are those verified through multiple independent lines of evidence and reasoning. Then I'd remind you that I do not believe there any objective moral truths and so saying one moral statement is more true than another is nonsense. One can't - why would one want or need to? We end up at arbitrariness whatever the case. You have God as an arbitrator, to whom we are responsible. I have people that are arbitrators to who I am responsible. A statement that relies on several claims.1) God exists
2) God created the universe
3) God did so based on his unchanging nature.
4) God created an ultimate morality
5) God intended for us to follow this morality
6) God dictated that doing otherwise is in direct opposition to him.All of which have yet to be demonstrated in such a fashion as to justify any degree of confidence.I know what you're system of morality is based upon. Your only argument against mine seems to be "It's different from mine.".Your sequence of quotes from various authors is meaningless. Why should I accept their word?

Empiricism is about experiences - what the conduits for those experiences are is not relevant. I haven't come to that conclusion. Would you like to try again? I'm not so dense that I didn't realize that the Holy Bible claims that God exists, created the universe etc. Remember when I said

quote:

---

Your sequence of quotes from various authors is meaningless. Why should I accept their word?

---

?