Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 221 of 1006 (799697)
02-13-2017 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 12:37 AM


So in an ironic and weird way you just said meaning is relative
Well I tried straightforward and explicitly saying it, I guess ironic and weird is what gets your attention.
You have no way to establish an actual moral exists.
I can point at people who believe in right and wrong, and I can say, those systems of judging the rightness or wrongness of things are systems of morality. Sounds like I just established actual morals exist. They exist in people's brains, sometimes they try to verbalize them or write them down.
If,morals are realtive, then you can't get something from nothing.
You can get something from nothing even if morals are objective.
Wouldn't you say that morals should be remotely consistent in an enviornment where where all life is equal.
I would expect commonalities and patterns if morality is evolved. I don't expect consistency. I don't see that all life is equal.
Or,do you,fancy yourself better than another species.
Better at what what. 'Better' is a relative term. Morally better? No, I don't think that makes sense. I certainly have a keener sense of morale issues than other species - I do have a pre-frontal cortex.
What would make you apply a set for different standards to other life forms?
An brain that is evolved to treat different circumstances in different ways.
Tastiness has nothing to compare itself to in reality.
Maybe not, but then I don't suggest otherwise.
I can compare different things and their tastiness.
Taste buds taste an actual substance
And whether or not I like that taste is my perception. How 'tasty' I find it is therefore subjective. Hence I think pineapples are disgusting and my wife thinks they are delicious. Neither of us are incorrect.
Tastiness is a concept with nothing to,compare itself to, except its own perception, or those of others.
Exactly. It is subjective. Whether or not something is tasty only makes sense relative to the taster in question. There is no objective 'tastiness'.
That which is relative does not actually exist.
I argue 'goodness' and 'evilness' don't actually exist. They as much 'in the eye of the beholder' as the tastiness of a fruit.
However, there are chemicals in fruits that stimulate tongues. There are signals that are sent from the tongue to the brain. The brain does process these signals.
There are actions in nature that are also processed by our brains. The actions and the brains objectively exist. Whether or not I think the actions are moral, immoral or amoral is entirely subjective - but that I think the actions are one of these is objectively real.
Subjective morals, perceived meaning cant actually exist, in a relative perception
They certainly do exist. There is however, no objectively correct morality, meaning, taste response or music preference.
Right the same way tastiness is only a perception, it has nothing to reference in reality.
In much the same was a 'good' and 'evil'.
Your so called meanings in a meaningless universe, have nothing to reference in reality, there only perceptions of a subjective percieved meaning or value.
This does not prohibit explaining them.
The same way tastiness is only perception with no actual reality, subjective and relative morals, which are perception have no reality
They have a reality - they just don't exist independent of tasters or thinkers or perceivers. There is nothing about the apple which means it is objectively tasty. To determine if it is tasty you have to compare that apple to a taster and work out how that taster will react to the apple's taste. Thus, it's tastiness is relative to the taster, not intrinsic to the apple.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:55 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 233 of 1006 (799756)
02-14-2017 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 8:55 PM


Reality and the animal's dilemma
The varying tastes between tasters, is just different tastes due to the taster buds.
And brains/mind. But yes, basically that's right.
. You can't create an ACTUAL BETTER taste in reality, it would only be a different taste due the tasters ,buds. But it could have no BETTER than another, because better would mean there is some standard of tastiness. There is not, reality won't allow it. So different tastes due to different buds or apples, doesn't mean better in reality
Exactly. So we agree that the different tastes are subjective. They aren't objectively better or worse than each other.
Different perceptions of morality are no more real than a better tasting apple.
I don't entirely disagree. There is an objective basis (the mind, the taste buds etc) for them, but the flavour and the goodness don't exist outside of us. They aren't objects in the 'outside world' they are subjects of the inside world. They are subjective.
I can imagine that I'm existence itself and I'm producing everything I see around me (i think weve all imagined that at some point) but that doesn't make my perception a reality or consistent with anything in reality.
But your imagination exists in reality, its just the subjects of your imagination are not objects in the world external to your mind. That's all I am saying. There are objectively real entities at the heart of taste and music preference and morality - but the goodness, the tastiness, the beauty of something is in the mind.
Do you see how perceptions cannot and are not any sort of reality.
They are real in the sense that they actually exist, they are not real in the sense that they exist as entities outside of the mind. They don't exist external to the mind. The brain itself is a real thing, and those brain states are objective entities. Do you accept this much?
I imagine an apple: The apple doesn't exist, but my imaginary apple does exist. It does not exist as an apple, it exists as an imaginary apple.
Well what I meant is , you kill and eat them, so you must have a standard by which you act in such a manner. Do you believe that its your status,, your intellect your situation, your morals or something I'd like to define, allows you to act in that certain way.
No.
I act the way I act because of my brain. I rationalize the way I act using my mind. The rationalizations of the mind, the biology of my brain and experience combine and affect one another.
I mean if you kill and eat a human it's morally evil, correct.
Most of the time, according to me, yes.
So how and why does this moral concept allude you when it happens to animals by your hand and bugs your standards
It doesn't allude me. Sometimes it is morally evil to kill and eat an animal. It's just these cases are rarer than with humans. According to me.
Well I must admit it's a Convient set up for you, to argue out of existence, something that you can't demonstrate exist to begin with.
Backwards. I argue it doesn't exist because it cannot be demonstrated to exist to begin with. If it does exist, we can't know about it which amounts to the same thing, in practice, as it not existing.
Then only problem is that there is no moral in reality for you to argue the validity or invalidity of goodness or evilness out of existence.
This isn't really a problem for me. I am not arguing that goodness isn't good, or doesn't exist. I'm arguing it only exists in our minds. If you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears.
Except for the fact that your brain is imagining it as tastiness. If another brain translates it as disgusting, this IMMEDIATELY DEMONSTRATES THAT TASTINESS IS NOT REAL OR A REALITY, but a perception.
Well since my entire thesis is that tastiness is subjective, not objective - this is exactly what I'm saying. I dispute your terminology of calling something that exists in mind 'not real' since it is real. I'm just saying it is not an objective entity outside of the mind. It does have a basis of objectivity - the processes of the brain, but the experience, the perception is subjective nevertheless.
Morals produced by your brain and your meaningless world have the exact same reality. None
They do have the exact same reality, yes. That's why I brought it up as an analogy in the first place. Other than the fact you seem to be using the word 'reality' to mean 'exists outside of the mind' whereas I am not seems to be the only point of contention on these points. But since we both agree we do find things tasty or disgusting - it is certainly true that your perception exists otherwise we couldn't find them tasty or disgusting. We would have no perception and no experiences. I know I have perception and experience - I'm confident you do too. So it would be wrong to say that perception does not exist. Agreed?
I agree with the first part of your statement, but why would or why is it necessary for your brain to interpret them as anything like moral or immoral. Why and where did you get that concept, instead of it just being things happening, coming into your brain. So why would your brain interpret the actions of a tree falling as just facts and you watching someone stab someone else as moral or immoral, right or wrong?
These are the questions you should be asking, rather than insisting that things we both agree exist, don't exist in my view even as I am asserting they do. Hopefully we've cleared all that up now and we can hit the important points.
The answer, in one word, is evolution.
In three words: evolutionary stable strategies.
In many words:
Let's talk about the Prisoner's Dilemma. It gets setup traditionally in terms of confessing crimes and implicating your partner in crime and receiving a lighter punishment for so doing - unless neither of you confesses in which case you both get off scott free.
But let's try to tie it into animals and surviving a little bit.

Animal's dilemma, simple version


Two animals meet, they cannot communicate with one another. They are both trying to access some 600 calories of food. There are three possibilities:
1: They both fight for the food. The result is a standoff and they both share the food ultimately but expend lots of energy fighting over it. They lose a net 10 calories in the affair. This is bad for both of them.
2: One of them fights, the other adopts a passive cooperative stance, and is forced to flee. The fleeing animal loses some calories and gets no food, so loses 100 calories net. The fighter loses some calories in the posturing and chasing and growling and whatnot and ends up with 500 calories net gain.
3. They both cooperate with one another and they share the food equally. They both get a 300 calorie net gain.
On its own, game theory (thanks Mr Nash) points out that the optimum thing to do is to fight. Why? If your opponent does not fight, you get 500 hundred. If your opponent does fight, you only lose 10 (rather than 100).
In the survival of the fittest then, that's what we'd expect right? Lots of selfish fighting over food or other resources. Indeed, we do see this in lots of places in nature.

The iterated animal's dilemma


But if we play the game repeatedly. Say, if the two animals in question live in a group, some other effects come into play. That is to say, strategy is possible - assuming the animals are able to recognize animals they have 'played the game' with before and have a memory of the other animal's strategy.
You can then come up with all sorts of strategies. One of the most effective strategies is actually one called 'Tit-for-tat'. That is to say 'if you've never met them before, cooperate for food. If you have met them, and they shared last time, share this time. If you have met them, and they fought you, fight them this time.
Over many iterations of the game, this strategy is very successful. Other strategies are possible of course.

Equilibrium and stability

In the standalone game the Nash equilibrium is to always fight. One animal always does strictly better by fighting whatever their opponent chooses to do.
With iteration, its more complicated. The optimum strategy to adopt depends on the strategy the other animals are taking. If the other animals are sharing all the time regardless - then fighting every time is still the optimum strategy as you always get the best reward for so doing. The 'cooperate every time' is easily defeated. Tit-for-tat inhibits the 'always fight' strategy so if all other animals adopt tit-for-tat, then 'always fight' is a bad strategy.
Tit-for-tat is a 'nice' strategy. There are numerous possible 'nice' strategies, some do poorly. But in this game the top performers are 'nice'. Nice strategies always share food as their default behaviour, only fighting in retaliation - never instigating (or at least, rarely) fighting behaviour.
There is also another dimension 'forgiveness'. It's a measure of how quickly the strategy returns to being 'nice' to an animals after that animal has betrayed them by fighting over food. In this particular setup, forgiving strategies also do well - indeed, unforgiving strategies tend to descend into mutual perpetual fighting if there are any other strategies that occasionally fight over food - especially if those strategies retaliate against fighters themselves.

Summary

Certain conditions exist, where being 'nice' and 'forgiving' are advantageous in the long term. These conditions include regular interaction with other animals over the same resources.
Given animal behaviour is evolved, there are certain types of living where there is an evolutionary pressure that could drive evolution towards evolving nice and forgiving behaviours.
To keep things short, I'll leave the example there, but I argue that this gives us our basis for morality. An instinctual behaviour towards 'niceness' and 'forgiveness' that, over the long term, is the best strategy for every individual.
The more complex arena of human morality requires more building blocks on top of this - but they ultimately come down to the same process iterating upon itself.
There, that's why 'fighting for food' and 'sharing food' is a different kind of concern than 'a tree falling'.
You'll have to do a lot better than this, to demonstrate that Atheism CAN actually have and explain morals in a meaningless universe.
What do you make of that as a start? I think I've show that, in principle, it CAN be the case that morals have an explanation, and I didn't reference any 'ultimate meaning' in the process. Just optimal ways to collect resources required for survival. Suboptimal methods, survive less well, and die off. Optimal methods survive more regularly, and this reproduce more than sub-optimal methods and therefore can dominate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-14-2017 11:49 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 250 of 1006 (799812)
02-15-2017 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Dawn Bertot
02-14-2017 11:49 PM


Re: Reality and the animal's dilemma
Your mind imagines things as evil, because they do not suit you. Actual evil cannot exist in your world,,thus goodness cannot either. It's a product of the imagination only.
Yes, I think we are in agreement; any disagreement at this point is probably purely semantic in nature.
But you have no hope of showing in a rational form that even that perception or imagination of Good is first real or more than another biological process in a natural world.
If by 'real' you mean 'has objective existence outside of the perceiver' then I agree.
IOWS you have no hope of showing that evil and moral good actually exist, other than imagination. Thus Atheist cannot have or explain in a real way have morals
Yes, to the first sentence.
No to the second. If morality is 'that which is inside our heads that governs, to some extent, our social behaviour' - as I claim morality is (as opposed to your view of morality as a perfect ideal external to the mind), then an atheist can in principle explain morals.
Let's try again. Tastiness like Good or Evil have no equivalency in the real world. There is no thing in the real world that you can point to and say that thing is EVIL. You can point to an apple but you can't point to tastiness.. Since, tastiness is an imagination of the brain, with no reality, it has no hope of being real like an imagined morality
Exactly. It's subjective, not objective. We agree.
Not a bad start but a sad ending.
Since I haven't got to the end (a complete account can, and has, taken books and is therefore beyond the scope of an internet debate), this is all I need. A good start to show how, in principle we can explain morality.
Describe the Nazis actions for me using your scale and examples.
Human morality is above the scope of the example I was providing which was instinctual. However, to give a start to answering what is a complicated question I can turn to in-group and out-group dynamics.
The dynamics of the 'animal's dilemma' was focussed on in-group dynamics, as I stated: "if the two animals in question live in a group". But there is always a group next door. This group is interacted with less, but there are often 'border conflicts'. And there is a new dynamic: If we wait here and be passive: they might take advantage of our complacency and attack us while our guard is down, defeat us and take our resources...therefore we should attack them before they enact their coup de grce. Which is exacerbated with the reflection 'they are probably thinking the same thing, so we need to act sooner rather than later'.
In-group dynamics are supported by local alliance and family. Family effects are reinforced biologically through kin-selection effects. Outgroups are an ever present threat.
So once one human group agrees another human group is an out-group, a set of 'others', there is the real risk of conflict - driven by fears and hatred. Thus, the Nazis (and indeed, much of the history of human conflict).
Again, this is a complex area once we get into humanity.
To harken back to my example: it worked out that sharing over the long term is advantageous because of the specifics of the numbers. Vary the numbers - the payoffs and risks, and different strategies may emerge. This gives us the primal motives, the instincts.
The complexities of moral philosophy are built on this foundation: They are the product of communicative animals trying to explain why one social strategy is more optimal than another, creating cultural ideas that are occasionally challenged (But with a pressure towards conservatism: If it works 'well enough', its seldom a good idea to upset the apple cart as things might get better, but they could get worse etc)
So there you go. Atheists can, and have, provided an explanation for moral behaviours, and the behaviour for constructing moral philosophies. It explains their existence, their commonalities and their differences.
All that is required now, is for you to take the leap into accepting that your definition of morality is but one argument among the many. You need to fearlessly accept other definitions of morality, and see the answers you are getting in that light. So far you seem to be saying 'because they aren't objective you can't explain them because you can't explain that which is not real'. But you can explain tastiness, you can explain musical preferences, you can explain morality - even if it is subjective. Even if it exists, as experienced, in our minds alone. There is an objective reality at its heart: within the human brain. So there is a reality, despite your protestations. They just don't exist outside of our brain.
You have been unable to show that in principle, this is impossible, other than to assert your definition of morality is the only definition, and by definition subjective morality is wrong. This is no argument. I have argued an actual explanation. I think, unless you have some new thing to say, something beyond 'but it doesn't exist QED', we have reached the natural conclusion of the debate. I believe you have failed to support your thesis with anything other than ' Your argument isn't an argument of facts, of pragmatics - but instead a semantic one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-14-2017 11:49 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 5:56 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 273 of 1006 (799898)
02-17-2017 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Dawn Bertot
02-17-2017 5:56 AM


Re: Reality and the animal's dilemma
I showed its possible, by showing hopeless inconsistency in even the very words you used to describe morality, in this instance Hatred.
Hatred is not morality. It's an emotion. Hating something is not immoral or moral - it is amoral.
If the Nazis were wrong for thier hatred, then you would have to show why.
I can give reasons why I think what the Nazis did was wrong, immoral etc. But what would be the point? I'm here to explain morality, not provide specific moral arguments for or against specific actions.
Well no, at best this is an explanation of things happening
And - as we both agree - my perspective on morality is that it is certain things happening, that's all that I need to do in order to explain morals and morality.
Again, why is this different than the totality of things as having any real meaning. Certainly there is a way to demonstrate that your alleged meanings as meanings in reality are somehow greater than the whole of everything, which you fellas are found of claiming has no meaning.
This is meaningless. After attempting to parse it into English all I can say is that I don't think my meanings are greater than the whole of everything.
Even if evolution were true, it would not help your delimma
My purpose in this thread is to show that I can explain morality. Evolution can be used to explain morality.
I guess I should not be surprised you actually think there are many definitions of morality. When in actuality, it either exists or it does not.
That you and I differ on how we define morality more or less proves my case. We both agree it exists. I just don't think there is One True Morality.
No I'm not saying you can't explain them because there not objective, I'm saying you can't explain them because reality won't allow it.
Take it up with reality, since I've done it. I can't explain One True Morality, but I don't need to as I don't think it exists. I can explain why people are both kind and mean to one another in varying ways. I can explain why people disagree over moral issues. I can explain morality by rejecting One True Morality as either incoherent or unknowable and instead simply explaining the behaviour and emotions that we have come to call morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 5:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 6:55 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 287 of 1006 (800175)
02-20-2017 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2017 6:55 AM


in a circle
So are you saying that for an individual, morals don't come from emotions or feelings or perceptions
I'm saying emotions aren't moral: "Hatred is not morality. It's an emotion." Seemed pretty clear to me what I was saying.
So I was correct you really don't think thier actions were immoral in actuality, just in some imagination of your mind.
I said it in Message 146. If we carry on, I expect you'll ask me again at some point in the future too.
That's not even getting started
Why? If I see morals as 'stuff happening' then all I need to do to support this is appeal to 'stuff happening'. Why is that not even a start?
{ there is a way to demonstrate that your alleged meanings as meanings in reality are somehow greater than the whole of everything, which you fellas are found of claiming has no meaning} {is} Hardly meaningless.
I dispute this.
If it's clear that the universe is meaningless and has no purpose and it will end in the same way, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see your life has no meaning.
Yup.
Your imagining meaning would logically just be another biological process. Are you starting to see how hopeless your position actually is
No.
So the very thing that starts with blind Mindless causes and purposes, causes more pain suffering and death and will end in infinite regression, can be used to help explain morals
In a nutshell. Not sure what you mean about the infinite regression part but yeah - as I already outlined, it can.
if God does not exist, then there are only biological processes
I'm not sure that is necessarily true. But I guess that's just a quibble.
I said to reality, we'll that makes perfect sense. Then he said to me, could you leave me alone I don't really care what you imagine or think, it doesn't make a difference to me
I'm shocked - that's exactly right. You really must have been in touch with reality at least once in your life!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 6:55 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:21 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 300 of 1006 (800268)
02-21-2017 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Dawn Bertot
02-21-2017 5:21 AM


Re: in a circle
So if the Nazis did something out of hatred, this made thier actions not immoral, because hatred is not a moral just an emotion.
No that's not how English works either. What the Nazis did was immoral regardless of their emotional condition. Whether they did it out of love or joy or with hate or anger or fear.
Emotions can come into consideration in moral discussions, but they themselves are not moral or immoral. This is in answer to your challenge: 'So how would you describe hatred in a moral sense'.
How did you come to this brilliant conclusion that an emotion such as hatred, is just an an emotion an not a moral, but whatever anybody wants or sees as a moral, is actually morality?
I didn't. Whether or not an action is moral or immoral is subjective and down the individual. Whether or not something is morality is a definitional issue.
morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Which principles someone varies between individuals. The principles themselves are moralities.
Our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ said, that if you hate your brother without a cause, that it was a sin, hence a moral. Was he mistaken or just plain wrong
I disagree that the act of hating someone is immoral, the actions that the hatred may lead to however, may be immoral. I disagree with Jesus, but that doesn't mean he is objectively wrong.
The reason your not getting started, is because you see stuff happening as a moral
Almost, but backwards. I see morality as, in a reductionist sense, things happening. And as you said: ' at best this is an explanation of things happening'. So since I see morality as things happening, and I have provided an explanation of things happening, this doesn't seem to me to be a problem. I have provided an explanation consistent with, and within the scope of, my conception of morality. If I did otherwise, this would be a problem, but since I did not - it seems I'm doing things right.
You need to demonstrate that, asserting it won't work.
Well, I did that back in Message 233. I explained how matter could evolve towards niceness and forgiveness. I went on later to describe how matter could evolve nastiness and unforgiving at your request.
So if I see stuff happening and I imagine I'm the creator of it all, does that make me, the creator of it all.
No, that doesn't follow from my argument at all. I suggest you try to understand my argument and argue against that rather than continuously arguing against what you came into this debate thinking my argument is.
You seem to be flip flopping all over the place on just what morality is actually.
Morality is the concept that some actions are right and some actions are wrong. It derives from evolved behavioural traits with the addition of cultural/social learning. That's a position I've argued consistently in this thread. Again, you've flip flopped around in your understanding of my position, but this is not the same as me flip flopping about what I am arguing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:21 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2017 7:52 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 316 of 1006 (800360)
02-22-2017 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Dawn Bertot
02-22-2017 7:52 AM


Re: in a circle
If I was disposed to believe that the Nazis were correct, aside from my emotions, would that make them moral. Or would we need a bunch of people that agree with me, to decide that it was moral.
No. It is not a question of your opinion making things objectively true, nor does it become objectively true through consensus.
If you think the Nazis actions were moral then that means you think the Nazis actions were moral. That's it. It doesn't make them moral. Whether or not something is moral, is relative to any given system of morality. I suppose in some systems of morality, the actions would be considered moral.
So nastiness and niceness are brought about by evolution, which in turn develope morals.
Not really, no. Nastiness and niceness are names to behaviours that can evolve. Whether they are moral or not, requires someone (ie a subject) to make that distinction. Those someones can evolve too.
But emotions don't make up morals, even though nastiness and niceness, by any real definition, would come from emotions.
No, niceness doesn't require emotions. Niceness is just a name given to a class of strategy. The word 'nice' may be emotionally laden, but the strategy can exist without someone calling it 'nice' or feeling that it is 'nice'.
But if your are saying that animals can't really be nasty or nice, and that morals are of the same substance, I'll agree that you agree, morals don't really exist.
Animals can behave in certain ways, and some animals may regard those behaviours as belonging to the strategy of 'nice' or 'nasty' if they had language to describe them. The strategies exist. There is not however, an objective truth as to whether they are 'nice' or 'nasty'. That is a value that exists only in the minds of subjective beings.
So my point is proven.
Yes, they 'don't exist' in the sense that moral value judgements don't exist outside of minds. But that's hardly proving your point, that's just another way of saying 'subjective'. It doesn't prove they are unexplainable.
Well that is a perfect redescription of what we are debating.
Thank you.
Since you only again described what you believe and not necessarily what is true, I'll consider your statement as a loose observation or assertion.
Good good.
If you'd like to actually present an argument in connection with that observation I'll consider it
Message 233
Of course you disagree with him, you've made morals something undefinable and nonexistent
I agree with Jesus on a number of points, but not this one (or indeed the similar one about lusting after a woman being adulterous).
I have of course, not made morals undefinable and nonexistent. I've called them subjective, like our opinion of the taste of an apple or the preference for Mozart.
...except in some relativistic imaginations of your mind
If the taste of an apple is 'relativistic imaginations' then sure. That's basically it.
But you did do otherwise.
Make up your mind! You said before: 'at best this is an explanation of things happening' - now you are saying it is something else?
You described nastiness and niceness as the things that brought about morals from an evolutionary standpoint.
I described how different strategies can be optimal, the 'nice' label was used to give certain classes of strategies a name and is a subjective judgement that I think many people would agree is suitable. We, generally, call classes of behavioural strategy I labelled as 'nice' as 'morally good' once we add all our culture and learning on top of our perceptions of those strategies.
If they are not actually proceeding from emotions, I'll assume that the morality they created, is as un real as they are.
I wouldn't say 'not actually proceeding from emotions' - I'd in fact argue that emotions are an important part of the process of moral judgements. I said, and repeated several times, that emotions themselves are not morals. Besides - emotions are as unreal as morality by your definition of what is real. Emotions don't exist except subjectively. There is no hatred floating around in space you can point at. Hatred only exists in haters, that is, hatred is relative to a subject. It is subjective.
Instruments are not music in a similar way.
But not in any real sense do you mean nasty and unforgiving
I can't speak to what you call a 'real sense'. The strategies just are. How we characterise them is entirely up to us.
So your alleged morals are just as unreal , correct. Your just describing things that don't actually exist, correct
Whether or not a behavioural strategy is 'nice' or 'unforgiving' is a judgement that exists only in our minds. They don't exist outside of our minds. However, we can define a 'forgiving' strategy to have certain criteria so that we can basically agree whether any given strategy is 'forgiving' or not - for the purposes of using language to talk about them.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2017 7:52 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2017 5:25 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 334 of 1006 (800513)
02-24-2017 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Dawn Bertot
02-24-2017 5:25 AM


Re: in a circle
Subjective is a made up word
All words are made up, Dawn.
Well as far as I can see, you just articulated yourself out of actually having and possessing a real morality. You have demonstrated my primary argument as true. That being, that imaginations of the mind are not real things. Thank you
Hence the subtitle of 'in a circle'. We've already done this bit of the argument. That's fine, if those are the definitions you want to use, go right ahead. I can still explain morality, the idea that some things are considered 'good' and some things 'evil', I can explain 'good' behaviour and 'evil' behaviour and how different categories of behaviour and the opinions about them come to be.
That is, I can explain what we see in the real world - the way humans behave and talk about things using things we see in the real world - evolution, behavioural strategies and so on. Whether you think perception is not 'actually real' is irrelevant to this. I'm hoping you'll get stop the merry go round and move forwards with your argument, but I don't think there is anything more is there?
Well I really should just let you finish my thread and argument, that Atheist cannot rationally explain Morals, your doing a much better job for my argument.
Since I can explain morals, by which I mean the behaviour and opinions of that behaviour that people have, I'm good.
I can't explain your understanding of morality, but you've struggled to do this too, and this is not my problem but yours.
Morality can be explained, if it is subjective. That's my argument and I think I've presented a case to show this. All you seem to have achieved so far is 'proving' that subjective things aren't objective things. Which was never in dispute. Subjective things derive from objective things (eg brains)
But then of course there would be nothing to explain if they don't actually exist outside the mind, correct.
Incorrect. We'd still have explain their existence within our minds. How did they come to exist in our minds? Why are there commonalities? Why are there differences? This I have provided a provisional explanation for to show it is in principle possible, in contradiction to your thesis.
And that's the best we can do. You see modulous your definition of morals is an endless loop of hopeless nonsense
No, there's no loop. We have things in our mind. Those things can be explained in terms, of physical objects and their origins (eg., our brains by evolution and learning)
It is proving my point that even the word subjective is an imagination of the mind. There is no way for the word itself to have any actual meaning in reality.
No word has actual meaning in reality.
They can however, refer to things that actually exist in reality.
Moralities actually exist in reality. I can explain them.
. It would be like saying I'm creating a word called subjective to describe another nonexistent thing called morality. I'm going to use one nonexistent thing to describe another nonexistent thing.
Only in a world where you define things that exist in our minds as not existing, but that is a self-defeating position as if they exist in our minds, they exist. Unless you don't believe your mind exists, which seems like an extreme but perhaps defensible position in your case.
Ok so if animals only appear to be nice or morally good. How did you determine that humans ACTUALLY are nice and morally good
I didn't. By your definition of 'actual' as I understand it, they aren't. They do however, have opinions about what is nice and morally good. Those opinions actually exist.
Nobody is 'right' in their opinion about Mozart vs Beethoven. Nobody is 'right' in their opinion about Good vs Evil.
Indirectly, You seem to be saying that humans are not actually good, that's simply a term we've come up with to describe our actions, that already have biological meaning, that really need no more description. Did I nail it?
Close, though I am pretty sure I've directly said that no human is 'actually' good several times, now. That's what is meant by calling morality 'subjective'. No apple actually tastes good. No composer is the best. etc
I don't think I agree with the 'biological meaning' and needing no more description part. But I don't think it's important, so I'm not going to worry too much about that.
Well, no I would say that the word Anger is not a real thing.
Great, we're in agreement on this - in the sense that there is no anger floating around in space you can point at. Anger only exists in the angry.
However, the word hatred or anger do not have actual existence, like Nice or Helpful.
Right. There is no 'anger' or 'nice' or 'helpful' OBJECT. They exist merely as properties of a SUBJECT.
Hence it's not actually possible for you as an Atheist to have an actual moral, except that which is imagined
Not a moral that has some moral 'object', no. But that's what I've been saying for some time now. I can however have morals, and those morals can derive from objects (eg., my brain). To call it 'imagined' is not accurate - I don't 'imagine' how I taste an apple. I *can* imagine the taste of an apple, but this is fundamentally different from the experience of tasting an apple. I can imagine a pretty lady, but this is different that seeing a pretty lady.
The tastiness and prettiness of the 'objects' is dependent on a 'subject' to have the experience and experience them in a certain way. I experience this apple as tasty, this pineapple as too acidic, that lady as pretty, that one as ugly. Imagination implies 'volition' which is not necessarily involved.
One other point I would make, it's not by My Definiton, it's by what reality will allow.
Yes, it is your definition. It is your opinion that this is what reality will allow. You have certainly not demonstrated that your opinion is inescapable. Far from it.
So how would a thing called morality Actually exist outside our minds?
It doesn't. It can't! Your morality exists outside of my mind, but that's the extent of it. Without minds, there is no morality.
if it exist before humans
IF. I don't think it did (or if it did, it existed in pre-human primates). Maybe some kind of reasoned mindful morality exists in other animals too (dolphins? elephants? dogs? pigs?), I can't say for sure - but the evidence suggests they don't have language or a pre-frontal cortex so that rules out certain qualities.
If it does exist outside of minds, then it is OBJECTIVE.
If it only exists in minds, then it is SUBJECTIVE.
I have been arguing the latter. I have been arguing this allows for an explanation where theories of objective morality have been failing since Socrates pointed out the fundamental problems with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2017 5:25 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2017 6:52 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 345 of 1006 (800750)
02-27-2017 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Dawn Bertot
02-27-2017 6:52 AM


Re: in a circle
Explaining something into existence is not the same as it actually existing.
I'm explaining something we both agree exists. I am not explaining something into existence.
Explaining things as good or bad, right or wrong, would of course have meaning only to yourself and your species, which shuts it down as being real in real sense, in the real world, correct?
Use whatever words makes you feel better, it won't alter the truth of the matter.
There are certain behaviours.
People have certain types of opinions about those behaviours.
I can explain this.
If you want to persuade me that behaviours or opinions don't exist you'll have to do something better than wordplay. I have seen and exhibited behaviour. I've held and heard opinions.
Specifically how Theism corresponds to reality. How Judeo-Christianity explains morals in and as real thing
I invited you to to show me how its done some time ago, I'm still waiting. Don't worry, in your own time.
Nothing is or can be subjective and subjective is not a real thing, because there is no actual right or wrong in reality correct? If you could actually give me an example of something that actually exists as RIGHT or WRONG, then you might have a case
Well no, if I could do that - it would undermine my case: that nothing actually exists as right or wrong. That's something YOU should be trying to do, rather than denying conscious experience is real.
Oh that's very easy. They came into your minds as a product of your imagination.
The question being, why did it come into my mind?
But as I've demonstrated, if there's even one thing in my imagination as not real and nonexistent, then it would follow that nothing in our imaginations, that is the imagination itself is not and could not have actual existence.
But you are arguing against an imaginary opponent here, I am aware that the objects in our imaginations are not real, in the sense that an apple in my mind is not an actual apple. We've agreed about this a thousand times. What is real is that I am imagining an apple. You can't say that I am not imagining an apple, and if you can imagine an apple, you have to admit that imaginations actually exist. Not the imagined entities, but the imagination itself is a real thing.
If I was the first human to witness the taking of another human life and I imagined it as wrong, there is no logical way it could actually be wrong
Yes, exactly.
And certainly not subjectively wrong, as that would be less than not real, correct.
Wrong. If you think it is wrong, then it is subjectively wrong.
You see Modulous there is the reality of the action in the real world we have to deal with before we imagine something about it.
Correct. The action in the real world is the behaviour. I can explain behaviours. Our reaction to those behaviours includes our moral opinion. I can explain those too. So where's the problem, exactly?
You can't do this anymore than I could explain how I am existence and I created everything.
Well you could try, but I suspect the fact that it isn't remotely true makes explaining how it came to be that way very difficult.
On the other hand, people do behave in certain ways. People do have opinions about the way people behave. So I can, and have, given explanation for the things we both agree are true.
How would you explain my imagination which corresponds to things in reality, as right.
We wouldn't. And indeed, I've said this repeatedly. The circle continues. Perhaps you should consider what my position actually is. Or try asking questions that might illuminate you rather than constructing rhetorical questions you think show how wrong I am. Without understanding what I am saying, the rhetorical questions aren't getting you anywhere.
Sure they do, but so does every imagination I can drudge up that is clearly not real either
Good. So now we can agree they exist. I've never argued they are 'real' as in 'exist outside of our minds'. Indeed, I have basically only ever argued that moral opinions exist within our minds, not out in the 'real world' as 'objects', but in the mental world as 'subjects'. You should really know this by now.
Right because both are simply biological functions. Only human arrogance would assume it has the right to invent right and wrong. It's not even a logical possiblity in your existence. How could a person of your seeming intelligence, advocate that if two different people percieve something in the real world, something they witness, then one considers it right, the other wrong, both be correct or right
I have in fact, never done such a thing. I've done the opposite! You just quoted me as saying:
quote:
Nobody is 'right' in their opinion about Mozart vs Beethoven. Nobody is 'right' in their opinion about Good vs Evil.
Why are you now trying to claim that I am in fact saying 'EVERYBODY is right in their opinions'? It's the exact opposite of what I said! Pay attention! Try to understand before you try to refute. Otherwise we just carry on going around in circles.
Correct, so your imagination of the lady is not real, even though you know they exist in reality
OK, now you understand the analogy, time to address the topic.
Imagining my moral reaction is different from having my moral reaction. I'm talking about having a moral reaction, you are criticising me on the grounds of imagining my moral reaction. These are different things. So please actually address my position, not your caricature of my position.
My moral reaction has a feeling. I may find murder horrifying. I may find adultery upsetting. There are a series of thoughts and emotions and other feelings that are generated. These are not imagined like I imagine a lady - but experienced like seeing a lady and feeling attracted to her.
Question, is it possible for me to imagine something that s not actually real, even though I can imagine it?
Yes.
If I witnessed something in the real world then I imagined it as something then gave it a title, would it be possible for me to only be imagining it and it's title I gave it?
Yes.
So then according to this reasoning I could classify tastiness as moral or immoral, beauty as right and wrong.
You could.
So then you would argue and defend a person's right to believe that any immoral act as he sees it, would be ok, right, correct and moral as long as his mind percieved It that way?
Yes, of course.
Further, that logically there is no real way to hold that person accountable, because he is just going by his own conscience.
No. We can hold people accountable. If A thinks murder is good and murders B but C, D and E think murder is bad - they could cooperate to hold A accountable for what they see as his moral transgression.
Atleast from a rational standpoint, not assuming socity norms
Neither A, B, C, D or E are correct, nor are any of them incorrect.

In summary

People behave in various ways.
Other people have opinions about those behaviours.
Do you agree?
That's what I am seeking to explain. If you are asking that I explain something else, you've probably missed the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2017 6:52 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-28-2017 6:45 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 358 of 1006 (800817)
02-28-2017 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Dawn Bertot
02-28-2017 6:45 AM


Re: in a circle
Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
There are certain behaviours.
People have certain types of opinions about those behaviours.
I can explain this.
Never said you could not
Oh good. I win.
But if two people disagree on what is right or wrong in the area of say adultry and they vehemently disagree, which opinion should we accept as right or wrong moral or immoral.
Normative vs descriptive.
quote:
Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking.
Descriptive ethics is a form of empirical research into the attitudes of individuals or groups of people. ... Those working on descriptive ethics aim to uncover people's beliefs about such things as values, which actions are right and wrong, and which characteristics of moral agents are virtuous.-- wikipedia
Neither of them is objectively correct in their belief.
We might have our own views as to which one is correct, and our own reasons for those views.
Just like if two people are vehemently arguing about Mozart vs Beethoven or the Tastiness of a meal. Neither are correct, but we may agree with or another of them.
I say when it comes to adultery that consequentialism {the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.} is the best method for determining if we should consider it moral or immoral. If the stakeholders are fine with with the extra-marital affair, if the consequences are non-exsitent, I see no reason to regard the adultery as immoral. If one person is deeply hurt by the adultery, if they feel their trust was betrayed etc., then I would say it is immoral.
You might say deontology {the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules} is a better way of making the determination.
Neither of us is objectively right.
morality is a contrivance in the mind
Correct, originating from learning, culture and brains for social cohesiveness.
That's the explanation.
Most recently I repeated it in my last post to Ringo in some detail
You seem to say the same thing I am saying:
quote:
It's a description of what we know in our hearts
What we know in our hearts varies from person to person.
First you say our imaginations are not real, then you say they are real in some sense. So which is it Modulous, they are real or not.
The Treachery of Images
That is not a pipe. The pipe is not real. It is a picture of a painting of a pipe. The picture is real. The painting is real. Come come, this is Philosophy 101 - representations vs the represented. Representations are not the represented, but representations themselves do exist and are real.
But I'll play along. I guess you didn't pay attention the first time.
Describing the thing that actually exists as an Apple, does not mean that's what it is in reality. You just gave it that name. It also does not give it more meaning. You've just decided to give it that description.
Correct. Exactly consistent with what I've been saying. How many times do you expect to around in this circle?
Now watch. Giving human or animal behaviors titles as good, bad, right, wrong, moral or immoral, does not mean that description is what they are.
Exactly as I've been saying.
If you say to me it's good, the next person says it's wrong, we quickly see this nothing more than making words up like apple to describe things.
Bingo. Well we're not 'making up words', we're using them but we disagree with whether the words we are using are a useful or correct description of what we discussing.
It's a hope less proposition.
Welcome to the human condition.
How muchless hope do you have of ACTUALLY describing what is ACTUALLY, right or wrong in a rational way.
I reject the notion that a certain apple ACTUALLY tastes good.
That a musician is ACTUALLY good.
That an action is ACTUALLY morally good.
Keep up - it'd help if you stopped running in circles.
Yes I can explain a tree, but that does not make the tree, good or bad, moral or immoral.
Correct. But my challenge is to explain morality, not demonstrate that any given morality is ACTUALLY good or bad.
I was not saying you were saying that indeed. I was saying that was the logical conclusion of a subjective morality.
The logical conclusion is exactly as I said. NOBODY is right or wrong. NOT EVERYBODY is right.
In other words in doesn't matter how you describe it because your descriptions are not what it actually is or is not.
It isn't ACTUALLY right or wrong. That's my point.
You have no way of demonstrating in any real way adultery is right or wrong
Correct. Neither do you. My explanation is that adultery isn't right or wrong in a 'real way'. It's rightness or wrongness is a social construct. What you've been characterising as 'made up'.
In fact there are people who think adultery is not even a real thing or itsnot right or wrong in the first place.
Well adultery is a real thing - it's a social phenomena. But it isn't objectively right or wrong. I might think a specific act of adultery is wrong. That is, it is subjectively wrong. But it isn't ACTUALLY wrong in some objective sense. Around and around we go.
As I said, I can't explain your conception of morality, and neither it seems, can you. (Your post to Ringo is not an explanation to your conception).
Which ones of yous guys moral reactions are actually real, or are they all ok.
They are all real. I don't think the term 'ok' makes sense to use. Because I reject objective morality.
quote:
Objective morality is the perspective that there are things about the universe that make certain morals claims true or false. An objectivist would state that the way the world is makes murder an objectively wrong thing to do. Objective morality also entails that these truths are universal. -- quora.com
I reject this conception.
quote:
There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do.
John Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath

That's subjectivity. Your counterargument to subjective morality boils down to 'it can't be true, because if it were true, it would be true.'
How can there be any hope for an actual right or wrong or morality to exist in any rational way outside of the infinite wisdom of God.
Well find an atheist objectivist and ask them. Indeed I don't see how it could exist inside the infinite wisdom of God. To paraphrase Socrates:
quote:
Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?
I don't know why you think the injection of emotions or feeling will help your proposition.
They are there to show how there is a difference between what I am talking about and 'imagination'. As I said.
You would actually have to know adultery was wrong, to have an emotional reaction.
No. We could feel it is wrong. We could believe it is wrong. We don't need to know it is wrong. Indeed, a good part of the pain of human suffering is that we don't know.
Otherwise your just having an emotional reaction to something that may or may not be wrong.
Yep.
Ready to move forwards yet, or do you want another round of circular running, saying the same things over and over again that amount to - 'but but subjectivity means that things are subjective and if they are subjective they aren't objective!'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-28-2017 6:45 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-28-2017 2:18 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 366 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-01-2017 7:35 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 373 of 1006 (800898)
03-01-2017 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Dawn Bertot
03-01-2017 7:35 AM


the essence of existence (in actual reality)
And if the other person is not deeply hurt by the action it is both moral and immoral at the same time according to your approach, correct
I don't know how you managed to get this from me saying
I see no reason to regard the adultery as immoral.
To answer your question: no.
One. There is absolutely no way to judge what is actually moral or immoral. Two. It demonstrates beyond any doubt that morality is strictly a human invention that does not actually have meaning in reality.
Morality derives from our learning, our culture and our evolved brains. Humans didn't invent our own brains, so it is not strictly a human invention.
Reality will let not allow a right or wrong, subjective or objective. It's a contrived ideology that does not give biological processes, adultery, or otherwise more meaning. How will you avoid this obvious conclusion?
I'm not avoiding the conclusion. In so far as I understand you meaning, it is my conclusion.
Hence, morality doesn't give more meaning to the animal kingdom , when they commit what you have fashioned as adultery.
I have not claimed otherwise. I give meaning to things. You give meaning to things. Morality doesn't give meaning to things on its own.
It just means that as a human you've decided to call it that, correct? It doesn't really exist. Hence no morality actually
To continue answering questions I have answered a dozen times - that is correct. It doesn't exist outside of our minds. It does exist inside minds. I say that means it exists. You are free deny the existence and contents of your own mind. Morality is not objective, is my point.
I mean , it is possible to establish somethings rationally in reality, correct?
Correct. At some point, you might get around to establishing rationally that morality exists in 'reality' - ie., not just in our minds.
Telling me that my perception of an artist is good and your perception is not, is subjective, is like saying, our perceptions aren't really real and don't matter anyway.
No, it's saying that our perceptions/opinions about our perceptions differ.
At best there is no way of determine which of us is right or wrong. So how could my perceptions of him be anything but an imagination, since there's no standard of what is a musical standard
That's what I'm saying, yes. With the proviso that imagination doesn't mean created entirely with volition. But yes, it is all in our minds as a result of our brains interacting with our environment.
Which means you are desperately trying to give meaning and explanation to something that doesn't exist in the first place.
I am not trying to give meaning to an objective morality.
I think you just hit the nail on the head, what do you mean by the expression Real Way
I was quoting you: "You have no way of demonstrating in any real way adultery is right or wrong"
For now I'll ignore the idea of a social contract as you describe it, because we can both agree that's made up
I actually said 'social construct'.
I suppose that Socrates being a Gentile and having lived before the advent of Christ and without the law of Moses, would have had more of an excuse for believing what he did. You, not so much. This is also why nearly 4000 years later, Jesus ideologies are prevelant and not Socrates. Judeo-Christianity conforms and explains what we and feel in the human make up. Socrates is someone you study in classroom. Christ is someone you apply to everyday living
No.
Well lot's more running in circles. I may as well try and move us forward with some actual philosophy rather than you just saying 'but your idea of morality is subjective which I reject' in a variety of different ways.

We want a sense a meaning. Just about everybody wants it. But what is meaning? This seems important to discuss, but you've given precious little time to the subject. The likes of Plato and Aristotle et al (and before you write them off as pre-Christian or without the Law, I should point out that Christianity is a neo-Platonic philosophy), had the idea that everything has an essence. You've hinted strongly towards this position yourself.

Essence

A property or set of properties that are necessary...or essential (get it?)...for a thing to be what it is. There are many types of knife - they may have long blades, serrated blades, plastic handles, bone handles...but they are all knives. The shape of the blade, the material of the handle are not essential to the definition - but a knife without a blade....is not a knife. The same might be said of chairs or...well so the Platonists argue - anything. There is some abstract 'ideal Chair/knife' and all the things we encounter in the world are 'reflections' of this ideal form.
In your view the 'ideal' form exists in the infinite wisdom of God, at least with morality, but the Platonists argued it is this way for everything - that they exist in some perfect - divine realm that serves as a reference of comparison that we use to know that a knife is a knife not a spoon or a chair.
This was amusingly put by Monty Python:
quote:
Half a bee, philosophically
Must, ipso facto, half not be
But half the bee has got to be
A vis-a-vis its entity, d'you see?
But can a bee be said to be
Or not to be an entire bee
When half the bee is not a bee
Due to some ancient injury?
So the idea with morality is that our 'essential properties' precedes our existence, and to be good, is to adhere to our essence. In your case, as understood, conceived, defined or created by God. The take away here is that this essence gives us a purpose: you were born to be a certain thing, live a certain way.
This is known as

Essentialism:

quote:
Essentialism is the view that for any specific entity there is a set of attributes which are necessary to its identity and function. In Western thought the concept is found in the work of Plato and Aristotle. Platonic idealism is the earliest known theory of how all things and concepts have an essential reality behind them (an "Idea" or "Form"), an essence that makes those things and concepts what they are.
quote:
Plato was one of the first essentialists, believing in the concept of ideal forms, an abstract entity of which individual objects are mere facsimiles. To give an example; the ideal form of a circle is a perfect circle, something that is physically impossible to make manifest, yet the circles that we draw and observe clearly have some idea in common this idea is the ideal form. Plato believed that these ideas are eternal and vastly superior to their manifestations in the world, and that we understand these manifestations in the material world by comparing and relating them to their respective ideal form. Plato's forms are regarded as patriarchs to essentialist dogma simply because they are a case of what is intrinsic and a-contextual of objects the abstract properties that makes them what they are.
quote:
Classical essentialists claim that some things are wrong in an absolute sense, for example murder breaks a universal, objective and natural moral law and not merely an advantageous, socially or ethically constructed one.

Existentialism

But this presupposes that essences do exist in some abstract or divine form prior to us 'having' them. There is no evidence of this. What if instead, we exist first and meaning comes later? This was Sartre's question to the world. Instead of being born with a purpose, a meaning - it's up to us to determine those things. As Sartre put it: "existence precedes essence".
This isn't exclusively an atheistic idea - just ask Sren Kierkegaard. He's very difficult to pin down, but theistic existentialists believe God exists, but he doesn't create the meaning of my life, the universe or...anything.
Thus, say existentialists, there is no real actual intrinsic objective purpose or meaning to life or...anything.

Absurdity

quote:
"... in spite of or in defiance of the whole of existence he wills to be himself with it, to take it along, almost defying his torment. For to hope in the possibility of help, not to speak of help by virtue of the absurd, that for God all things are possible — no, that he will not do. And as for seeking help from any other — no, that he will not do for all the world; rather than seek help he would prefer to be himself — with all the tortures of hell, if so it must be." -- Kierkegaard
And thus we arrive at The Absurd.: The search for meaning in a meaningless world. There are basically two real solutions to humans when they face The Absurd:
  1. Religion: Kierkegaard suggests replacing The Absurd with The Irrational, the unevidenced.
  2. Acceptance: Albert Camus suggests that by accepting The Absurd we gain freedom. This freedom allows us to revolt against The Absurd while accepting its inevitability, and finding contentedness with personal meaning.
Since there is no reason for...anything...there are no absolutes to abide by. No rules, no justice, no fairness. Without rules, without guidelines for our actions, we are forced to design our own moral code. This is freedom, but it is rather scary.
quote:
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
It is up to you to give [life] a meaning. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
quote:
Those who appeal to the wisdom of the people — which is a sad wisdom — find ours sadder still. And yet, what could be more disillusioned than such sayings as Charity begins at home or Promote a rogue and he’ll sue you for damage, knock him down and he’ll do you homage? We all know how many common sayings can be quoted to this effect, and they all mean much the same — that you must not oppose the powers that be; that you must not fight against superior force; must not meddle in matters that are above your station. Or that any action not in accordance with some tradition is mere romanticism; or that any undertaking which has not the support of proven experience is foredoomed to frustration; and that since experience has shown men to be invariably inclined to evil, there must be firm rules to restrain them, otherwise we shall have anarchy. It is, however, the people who are forever mouthing these dismal proverbs and, whenever they are told of some more or less repulsive action, say How like human nature! — it is these very people, always harping upon realism, who complain that existentialism is too gloomy a view of things. Indeed their excessive protests make me suspect that what is annoying them is not so much our pessimism, but, much more likely, our optimism. For at bottom, what is alarming in the doctrine that I am about to try to explain to you is — is it not? — that it confronts man with a possibility of choice. -- Sartre
Sartre spoke of a pupil who was in a moral dilemma. He could stay at home and care for his elderly mother, making a great and direct positive impact on the life of one individual. Or he could go to war (in WWII) and contribute some small amount of effort towards the moral good of defeating a great evil, possibly never seeing his mother again who may well die without his presence.
quote:
If I feel that I love my mother enough to sacrifice everything else for her — my will to be avenged, all my longings for action and adventure then I stay with her. If, on the contrary, I feel that my love for her is not enough, I go. But how does one estimate the strength of a feeling? The value of his feeling for his mother was determined precisely by the fact that he was standing by her. I may say that I love a certain friend enough to sacrifice such or such a sum of money for him, but I cannot prove that unless I have done it. I may say, I love my mother enough to remain with her, if actually I have remained with her. I can only estimate the strength of this affection if I have performed an action by which it is defined and ratified. But if I then appeal to this affection to justify my action, I find myself drawn into a vicious circle.
quote:
There is this in common between art and morality, that in both we have to do with creation and invention. We cannot decide a priori what it is that should be done. I think it was made sufficiently clear to you in the case of that student who came to see me, that to whatever ethical system he might appeal, the Kantian or any other, he could find no sort of guidance whatever; he was obliged to invent the law for himself. Certainly we cannot say that this man, in choosing to remain with his mother — that is, in taking sentiment, personal devotion and concrete charity as his moral foundations — would be making an irresponsible choice, nor could we do so if he preferred the sacrifice of going away to England. Man makes himself; he is not found ready-made; he makes himself by the choice of his morality, and he cannot but choose a morality, such is the pressure of circumstances upon him. We define man only in relation to his commitments; it is therefore absurd to reproach us for irresponsibility in our choice.
quote:
You can see from these few reflections that nothing could be more unjust than the objections people raise against us. Existentialism is nothing else but an attempt to draw the full conclusions from a consistently atheistic position. Its intention is not in the least that of plunging men into despair. And if by despair one means as the Christians do — any attitude of unbelief, the despair of the existentialists is something different. Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view. Not that we believe God does exist, but we think that the real problem is not that of His existence; what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense existentialism is optimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by confining their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope.
In summary: We can't know the 'right' course of action. A pre-defined moral system may lean us one way or another, but in too many important ways it cannot answer actual moral questions. The only answer then, is the answer we give when those questions are put upon us and we are forced by circumstance to choose an answer. To decide between reasons and say which we feel is more important. This is freedom, but as terrifying as freedom is, as comforting as slavery might appear, we are condemned to live it one way or another. It is our choices that make, that construct the answers to moral questions. Nobody can give an answer to a person facing a moral dilemma, they can only opine on the choices - the answer does not exist until the dilemma is answered by the person facing it. No
I understand that you don't like the notion that we are so free, that morality is not, as it were, written in stone, but such is the human condition. The question isn't whether or not you like it, it isn't even whether or not you accept it. The question is: is it true? You have not refuted the truth of this matter, only argued that constructed meaning and constructed morality isn't 'really real'. So be it. If that is the way of things, that is the way of things.
As you have conceded, I may well be able to explain why humans behave in 'moral' ways. I may well be able to explain why we tend to feel certain ways about behaviours and why we have disagreements over those ways.
You can't refute the truth of the existentialist conception of the human condition. So, all that remains is for you to accept that it might be the case. There is little more I can see to argue here:
I have 'actually given a reason for having a morality'
I have '{established}' any kind of morality for an Atheist or Secular Fundamental Humanist, or nonbeliever.'
Hopefully you see that you agree with me on all major points at this time and we can escape the circle of madness you've taken us on.
You can refuse to accept The Absurd. The human condition. And you can simply follow the paths and ideas someone else came up with without realizing they are as much an authority on the right path as you are or I am.
Your life has meaning: if you choose to assign that meaning. If your meaning is in following God that's the meaning you have chosen. You are as condemned in freedom as much as I am in rejecting that meaning. We have to choose.
But ultimately - if the world is going to have any of the things we (you and I) actually value like Justice, Goodness - we're going to have to put them there ourselves. Otherwise, those things won't exist.

Evolution: creating the subjective from the objective


But take heart: none of this exists as a vacuum of subjectivity. We are animals with brains that evolved for social cooperation. We are drawn towards moral action, though we can be conflicted with our personal needs and thus selfishness. We draw up mutual rules and punish those that break them. That's what we do. As free as we are, we are constrained by our biology towards certain tendencies. Our culture is something we cannot be entirely free of, our learning while it can be self-directed is mostly involuntary. So justice will exist, goodness will exist, because as well as buildings, and music and meals, creating social systems and rules and rewards and punishments is an objective fact of our existence as social primates. So it's not made up from nowhere, random and anarchic. We are motivated by our social nature towards certain types of solution - and together we can guide others towards solutions we feel are better and on the whole that's what we have done, imperfectly, with a certain definition of freedom, but that's the way of it.
Moralities exist. We make them. Like buildings they vary, but there are certain immutable rules that must be followed in creating them. The rules of how to build a building are not laid down by God. The rules of how to construct morality are not laid down by God. The laws of nature provide the constraints, we use our minds to construct them as best we can within those constraints. Sometimes our buildings fall over because we didn't take something into account. That's the way it goes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-01-2017 7:35 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-02-2017 7:46 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 381 of 1006 (801008)
03-02-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Dawn Bertot
03-02-2017 7:46 AM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
Did you not say that, if one of the parties was deeply hurt, then you see the adultry as immoral. Did I miss that point.
That is correct.
To which I repleied, then the other party, that does not see his actions as hurtful, then that would make the adultery, not immoral.
In this case, one of the stakeholders was deeply hurt, and thus it would be immoral, in my opinion. As I said
If the stakeholders are fine with with the extra-marital affair, if the consequences are non-exsitent, I see no reason to regard the adultery as immoral. If one person is deeply hurt by the adultery, if they feel their trust was betrayed etc., then I would say it is immoral.
If ALL stakeholders are fine with it. Not immoral.
If even ONE stakeholder is not fine with it. Is immoral.
A simplification, but apparently this proved a challenge so I'm glad I kept it simple.
My implication is that you have reduced the adultery and morality to nonsense and pretty much nonexistent or imaginative, correct.
Incorrect.
You seem to be giving a response, it doesn't matter it's all a matter of perspective, correct?
It matters, or doesn't matter, to the stakeholders. Yes, it's all a matter of perspective.
I mean there are two parties involved, correct?
I'm pretty sure adultery usually requires at least three parties.
And your right back where you started.
Yes, that's why I keep saying you are going around in circles. I state my position, you get it wrong, so I say it again, you say it wrong. Every time I get off the starting blocks you want us to return to them.
Does an apple give meaning to itself, or does it need me to give meaning, to be what it is?
Neither. It is what it is independent of any meaning that may or may not be given to it by you.
IOWs, human behavior, is just what it is, correct, biological functions when I Observe it.
Your observation is irrelevant to what it is. Your observation is only required to have a subjective (that is YOUR) perspective on it.
My imagined meanings applied to it don't really give it more meaning, anymore than the apple, correct?.
Your meanings, my meanings - our meanings are the only meanings anything has. An apple or a behaviour has no intrinsic meaning other than that which people give them.
So if subjective meanings can't really give meanings to exhibited human behavior that I see, then they don't really exist, correct
What do you mean 'really exist'? Meaning isn't a property of the object or action if that's what you mean.
Or they are really worthless as actually being morality. Or did I miss something?
They have whatever worth you think they have. Yes, you seem to missing things.
Since every imagination can be different in the area of your Socalled morality, which exists only in the mind, this alone would be sufficient to demonstrate is as not valid an or real
I don't see why they are not valid or real as a result.
But if we switch it around as you do and say, we'll it has meaning to me because I imagined it, and it affects me. Then we really haven't gave meaning to the human behavior we observe, it's really still just an imagination.
Well that's what meaning is. It is the interpretation of a mind. Without minds, there is no meaning. As I've repeatedly said.
To use an illustration, you say that hatred is not immoral, but your imagination of the subjective is actually a moral.
No.
Since the word apple has no meaning in reality, it would follow that the word subjective, would be less than nothing.
No, that doesn't follow at all.
Tying to describe morals stricky from the imagination just doesn't cut the mustard
As I have said and explained, ' Humans didn't invent our own brains, so it is not strictly a human invention.'
I never said you were. What I said was in your system of belief you have no hope of doing that.
Agreed: I don't need to.
It's not possible for subjective morality to exist.
And yet it is observed that it does. I submit therefore your framework of what is possible is flawed.
There is actually is no alleged or actual truth in your system for me to refute, that's the point.
False. Whether or not meaning is given to us by a divine being or if it is given by ourselves is an issue which has a truth value.
You will admit that there is a way to proceed rationally to demonstrate the validity or falsity of something, and you claim you have demonstrated that you think you have done that in and with my position. But with same breath subscribe to the idea that there is actually no truth to be known.
I don't subscribe to the diea there is no truth to be known. I subscribe to the opposite view, as I've said repeatedly. You really should argue against my position rather than the cartoon you created in your mind before this thread started.
I think they are incorrect. So is there a way to know with certainty which of is correct. ?
You were the one that started the thread, it's your job to make this case.
I am merely telling you what the argument you are arguing against actually is, you tell me if you can prove it false. The 'fellas' you talk of are philosophers, you should read their work as they provide an excellent example in how to construct an argument in a clear fashion.
If I disagree with the idea that you have given reasons, or demonstrated it in a rational way, is there a way for us to KNOW that or is that subjective as well?
Where knowledge is always tentative, yes. I have evidence and mathematics (ie logic) to back up my position that evolution can explain animal behaviour, that learning and culture can explain more nuanced behaviours, and opinions about those behaviours. On the other hand you have said 'its a good start' and stated that you have never tried to say that I couldn't do these things. While also saying that I couldn't explain it and that I haven't started. Hardly a consistent position.
Immutable rules with subjective moralities and they actually do exist?
Rules don't have moralities. Subjective moralities exist within a system of rules. We are constrained by our biology.
I was always under the impression buildings had foundations. You'll let me know, ok
Yes, having a firm foundation is one of the rules we tend to abide by when building a building. When we don't, they topple over. The same is true of moralities.
I find it interesting that you only quoted philosophers and ideologies that have a fatalistic view of truth. Why not quote Jesus, who said Truth is knowable and absolute
I don't see the utility in quoting Jesus. In so far as the truth is knowable and absolute, I agree with him. There are objective facts, and we can know them. However, 'killing a person is wrong' is simply neither true statement nor a false one on its own. Just like 'Mozart is the best composer', 'Lasagne is the tastiest dish' are also not true or false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-02-2017 7:46 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-03-2017 6:55 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 392 of 1006 (801148)
03-03-2017 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Dawn Bertot
03-03-2017 6:55 AM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
one is Cleary hurt by the action, how would we determine if the action is moral or immoral
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.
Bearing in mind we can't just take the victims view into consideration, because that would be inconsistent in establishing an actual moral, correct?
I 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. If you would like, I could just copy and past this statement a thousand times, would this help you?
Since all persons perspectives are potential morals, correct?
Not exactly. People have morals. Neither you, me, the victim or the assailant's moral is 'true'.
So it would follow that, your descriptions of what a morality actually are, in reality , are actually nonexistent, or have no real application to reality.
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.
Since your descriptions of human actions really can't give them more meaning, i see no way for them to have meaning outside your imagination. Hence,, no morality in reality.
There is no objective morality, that is my position. There is no single true morality. There are many moralities.
But if you think that your imaginations of what are right or wrong, actually exist outside of your imaginations, you've yet to demonstrate it
My position is that my morality exists inside my head, not outside of it as some 'objective' entity.
If you say it has meaning to you, but it has a totally different meaning to someone else, this would be actually be the meaning of something NOT real, correct?
Not at all. The apple is real. The behaviour is real.
Or at best useless as a standard. Or at worst, no hope of being an actual right or wrong, correct?
You can agree to use the same standards as me or not, their utility depends entirely on their use. They are not 'actual' in the sense of being objective - 'actual' 'intrinsic' 'objective' morality is a concept I reject. Just another 500 repeats and you might stop asking me, I suppose.
Since, as you have indicated, we didn't create our brains, it would then follow that our brains or meanings coming from our brains, have no intrinsic meaning.
My position is that there is no intrinsic meaning. Our brains don't come from our brains. Our meanings come from our brains. They only mean something TO ME - and possibly other subjective beings, not intrinsically.
I think your probably starting to see why, even by your own intimations, the Socalled subjective morality has an even less chance of actually having meaning, correct?
Since I've said it over and over, I'm not sure why you think I'm 'probably starting to see it' - It's my position! The only meanings are the ones we create, give, construct for things.
So what chance do our brains have of actually creating meaning in what is actually right or wrong.
My brain, 100% Your brain, probably close to it, but I'm prepared to accept otherwise.
Meaning without a subjective being is an incoherent concept. The only thing we know that CAN create meaning are brains. There may be others, but I know nothing of them.
There could be no actual right or wrong in it , correct. Hence no actual moral
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.
Repeatedly saying something doesn't make it valid
Correct. But I find myself having to repeat myself because you keep asking the same questions. At some point you'll advance your argument, I hope.
Since individual things are a part of the entire universe, it would follow that you would need to know everything to know it has no meaning.
By this reckoning nobody knows anything and the verb 'to know' becomes useless. I choose a definition of 'to know' which has practical use which includes tentativity: the possibility I'm wrong.
So saying absolutely there is no meaning, has no meaning, correct?
Unless I qualify it by pointing out that knowledge is tentative. Which I did: "Where knowledge is always tentative, yes. "
So, if this is true, it follows that you have little or no chance of knowing what is moral or immoral.
IF there is an objective morality - the same applies to you.
If there is not an objective morality, there is no knowledge to be had. Only perspective, views, opinions.
But this is what you need to do, give me an example of something that is actually subjectively in the area of morality.
Stealing to feed a starving child is morally good where there is no option to feed the child any other way.
Give me an example of something that will not just reduce itself to just more biological behavior.
I don't claim such a thing exists, in the area of morality. If either of us could do this, it would defeat my position.
I said you couldn't explain morals.
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.
Since behaviors in the natural kingdom, human or animal, have no hope of ever being right wrong, good or bad, actually, your have still to this point failed to demonstrate my proposition as false.
It's your job to demonstrate its truth. It's my job to show why your position can be doubted.
Applying morals to the human animal in one way and the animal kingdom another way, is alone itself, enough to show that it is an impossible task. Since we are just all animals, correct?
Different animals have evolved differently. I would have thought this self-evidently true.
And of course without even being aware of it you just set up a moral absolute
No I didn't. I didn't say anything about something being right or wrong morally.
you don't even apply the same rules to the animal kingdom in your strictly biological constraints.
We share some constraints with animals, but since other animals have different evolutionary histories, we have differing constraints too. A bird cannot build a power station, humans can. We have different constraints, but we are still constrained by physics, chemistry and history.
I'm fully aware of what the argument is, that I'm arguing against.
Then stop asking the same questions over and over and actually present an argument.
The mere fact that you would equate killing a person with some irrelevant decision as to whether, some composer is the best and a food is good, speaks volumes objective out your values and Belief system. I
The mere fact you think I equated them speaks volumes about your comprehension skills.
Your comparison is irrational and dishonest.
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.
So it seems you don't a gree with Jesus since he was speaking of moral absolutes
Do you now understand why I didn't quote him in order to illustrate the position of the existentialists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-03-2017 6:55 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-06-2017 7:53 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 409 of 1006 (801476)
03-06-2017 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Dawn Bertot
03-06-2017 7:53 AM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
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
You could use simple reasoning. Or you could read my words where I explicitly state this over and over again. Why are you repeating this?
In my view, there is only one kind of morality. It's a subjectively morality. Therefore actual morality is in my head, your head etc.
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.
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.
'Establish' subjective morality? I have no idea what that means. 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.
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.
I'm afraid not. You repeating my position back to me in your own words over and over again is not my fault. Nor is it my fault when you get it wrong. You haven't actually demonstrated any hopeless circles except for the one you insist we take.
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
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?
This is your thread - you're supposed to be showing how I'm wrong.
The only way for subjective facts to exist, is for objective facts to actually exist
I think this is probably true, yes.
The only way for subjective morality to exist is for objective morality to exist.
And if you could show that to be true, you win the argument.
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.
And I reject your idea of morals and prefer to use a useful one that describes the ethics in human behaviour.
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.
By adding the comment that any persons morals are not 'true', in whatever twisted way you mean that
I 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.
And as I have demonstrated your morals don't actually exist in reality in a rational way.
So, arguments about why you have misrepresented me aside - what's the problem?
By your definitions of morality, there can be no definition of stealing to have any meaning in the first place.
Stealing: The taking of property from one person without consent.
Hrm, seems you are wrong. Stealing is a verb, it can be defined whether or not I think it is objectively wrong or not.
Example if there are situations where stealing is ok then that would make the word and idea nonsensical and for all purposes nonexistent.
No, it wouldn't.
Both stealing and not stealing at the same time.
If you are stealing something you are stealing something, whether it is considered morally right by someone else or not.
If there is not the word is useless as a moral
The word 'stealing' is not a moral. The idea that 'stealing is always wrong' is a moral. I happen to disagree with that moral. You happen to agree with it. That's subjectivity.
But who gets to decide whether it is or is not.
We all do. And none of us is right. Just like I get to decide if the apple tastes good, and you get to decide if the apple tastes bad. Just like you get to decide if Beethoven is the best while I get to decide if Mozart is. Neither of us is right, we all get to make our own decisions. How many times have I explained this now? Try harder.
So it seems your right back to where you started, trying to demonstrate, imaginations quality as that which is actually right or wrong.
There is no actually right or wrong. That's my position. I've never tried to demonstrate that one thing is objectively right or wrong, I've been telling you I reject that position entirely!
Your argument from evolution demonstrated that niceness and helpful were imaginations of the human mind.
Nope. Please try harder. What I actually demonstrated was how cooperative behaviours can evolve. These behaviours, I said, could be called 'nice' or 'forgiving' as useful names given the nature of that behaviour.
It doesn't have to be objectively morally good for this to happen.
It just needs to be an optimal strategy in certain cases and that behaviour can evolve.
Whether we think of the behaviour as good or not, is up to us. The behaviours still exist, and can evolve; our thoughts about those behaviours exist and can come from our evolved brain and learning.
This is the position you need to tackle, not your strawman version.
If not and we are actually witnessing the evolution of morals in animals then it would follow morals exist outside the human mind.
Cooperative strategies can exist without minds.
Our opinion of whether they are moral or not cannot.
No I dont think I misrepresented you at all.
This is your problem Dawn. I know my position, and I can recognize when someone has it wrong. You still seem to think your understanding of my position is better than my understanding. This is insanity. When I tell you that what you said is not my view, given that my words are your only access to my view, this should be taken seriously. Instead you choose to disregard my words and argue against your own version of me.
I did not 'equate killing a person with some irrelevant decision as to whether, some composer is the best '. I do not think they are equal. To say I do think they are equal is to misrepresent my view that they are not equal. It's not difficult stuff this, honestly.
For example , the following verbal rubbish by yourself
I think I've been most kind to you regarding your grammatical problems and limited vocabulary. I assume English is not 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.
These like your statements above are what you need to demonstrate, not just assert.
Nope. You misrepresented my opinion, I was correcting it. You said 'Immutable rules with subjective moralities ....' My asserting my opinion that I don't think rules have subjective moralities is me demonstrating what my opinion is. Get my views right before you try to refute them.
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
This does not follow at all.
Rules govern our evolution, our biology. What we can think, how we think; how we behave. They do not have moralities, but they can result in strategies of behaviour and they can result in things having opinions about those behaviours.
Our formulation of behavioural rules derives from the 'rules' of nature that are not formulated by minds. The laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Those rules constrain us, but they also result in evolution which creates us and our behaviours, and our opinions about those behaviours (ie., moralities).
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.
True, but then the word 'murder' contains moral implications in it. The question is - what counts as murder (ie., immoral killing). That's where the subjectivity comes in. It becomes a judgement call.
killing a person is a statement that can be true or false
Agreed. I however think that 'this killing is immoral' cannot be said to be objectively true or false. Only subjectively can this assessment be made.
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
This is a 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.
It doesn't work Modulous, as I have clearly demonstrated.
You've clearly asserted it, the work of demonstration remains to done.
Subjective morality is just your imaginings.
Not just my imaginings, no. It is based on objective things such as my brain and my environment. As I've said repeatedly. Again - get my position right or you can't even attempt to refute it!
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.
Nope. This is the thread where you need to disprove my position, since I am an atheist and you claim I cannot do that which I claim I can. So you need to prove that I cannot do it. I only show you that in principle I can to give you a clearer idea what your target is. You still keep missing it.
The statement killing a person is wrong, can very easily be a truth statement, where objective clearly exists.
Agreed.
Asserting you believe it does not or may not doesn't demonstrate the opposite in any rational way.
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 yes if we are assuming strictly objective realities, but no, becauserules applied by humans do have moralities.
I have no idea what you mean by 'rules have moralities'. People have moralities, how do rules have them? Do rules get together and say 'ooh, you shouldn't have a rule against running at a pool, that's immoral'? Do they say 'you shouldn't have rules about rules, that's too meta and thus immoral'?
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.
You are certain of this. Yet you neglect to show how you are certain of this. I can justify my certainty in the mass of an apple by weighing it. I can justify my certainty in the length of a Mozart concerto by timing it. How have you justified your certainty in the immorality of the theft? What if the person who tasked you take the $20,000 had stolen it from the person who requires surgery? What if they had gained it from criminals in exchange for assassination? Is keeping a criminal in stolen or blood money really moral when it could be used to preserve life, instead of enabling the taking of it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-06-2017 7:53 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-07-2017 7:01 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 425 of 1006 (801545)
03-07-2017 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Dawn Bertot
03-07-2017 7:01 AM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
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.
Right. So what's the problem?
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.
And this can't be true because...?
If you are agreeing with me, then it would follow you are incorrect?
Only if you are incorrect, obviously.
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.
There is no such thing as 'taste itself'. Sorry to burst that bubble, I thought you knew?
If everything we see and know subjectively is predicated by the objective, why would you assume your subjective is not.
I don't. Just as the taste of something is dependent on the shape of the molecules within the thing, and the pattern of neurons in my brain - so to is my view of morality dependent on the specific nature of actions in question and my neuronal patterns. They are both equally predicated by the objective.
Beauty, tasty, lovely, sexy. They don't exist 'out there' for me to perceive them.
I say pineapple tastes horrible.
My wife says it tastes lovely.
Who is right? Objectively speaking?
You know instinctively that stealing is wrong and lying is wrong.
Evolved instincts are a large part of my argument yes, but not the whole picture. Your Message 1 explicitly states 'this is not a moral it's an Instinct'. You don't seem to have a consistent position on this.
You know this by that which was put there by God.
If you can prove this, you win the argument. I say it was put there by evolution. I have at least shown how this can happen. You have not done the same with God.
However, you know also instinctively that preference is not category of right and wrong, but just a preference.
Wrong. I know right and wrong are preferences. Prove otherwise to win.
The only way for subjective morality to exist is for objective morality to exist.
And if you could show that to be true, you win the argument.
I just did.
No you didn't.
Fortunately my concepts of morals are reason and reality based, yours are imaginations and perceptions
You have an imaginary deity in yours.
I have brains and behaviour and environment. All these are real things.
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.
Well no, that stuff explains morality.
The fact that you and I disagree about whether stealing is always immoral demonstrates that subjective morality exists in reality.
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.
What poor creatures?
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.
See 'the animals dilemma' for my explanation for how moral behaviours can evolve.
Logically and rationally stealing would have no meaning, if the there was no standard by which to measure it.
There is a standard by which to measure it: ownership.
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
Everytime you've made this claim, I point out that actually my conclusion is that NO PERSON'S concepts about immoral actions are correct OR incorrect.
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.
Agreed. Again.
So when I have an omnipotent, omniscient, morally absolute being saying thou shalt not steal, then that statement is an objectively true statement
Agreed. It's a shame you don't have such a thing or your argument would be won.
Lying is always wrong because it is against or in opposition to the absolute truth.
I see no reason to suppose that being against absolute truth is intrinsically immoral.
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.
Correct. What makes them wrong or bad is our opinion of them.
Your OPINIONS about them being moral or immoral are just that, opinions. Nothing more
Agreed. And moralities are just opinions, nothing more.
However, if you want to sink deeper into the quagmire of mean-spiritedness I will call you out on it each time.
Really!!!!!!!!!!!!?
Really.
And this is,I maintain and have seen no evidence to the contrary, is a logical impossibility.
You haven't shown it yet, sorry.
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.
And indeed, that's what we've got.
Since they are steeped in the irrational and hopelessly inconsistent, then it would follow they don't actually exist, correct?
No.
For something to be irrational, then there must exist the rational correct?
No.
So no objective morality, then logically no subjective morality. That makes perfect sense
No.
You disagreeing is not the same as proving I haven't atleast set it out in a rational way
Agreed. But the fact that you haven't set it out in a rational way speaks to this quite aptly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-07-2017 7:01 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Phat, posted 03-07-2017 1:44 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 437 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-08-2017 6:24 AM Modulous 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