My gift to you: Lawrence Krauss' head on a platter
Then any appeal to the rightness or wrongness of an act is begging the question. Remember how this conversation started: an atheist claimed to be a moral person and I called him out for being inconsistent. No one has yet justified an atheistic and especially deterministic/naturalistic view of rightness and wrongness. OrP has come the closest, but just not quite.
For the record, I don't have an "atheistic view of rightness and wrongness". It has been explained to you earlier, but I guess you were too busy spelling "inconsistent" to bother with something as trivial as reading posts. I have a view of rightness and wrongness, and I happen to be an atheist. These two things are not related. I no more derive morals from my atheism than I do from my disbelief in invisible intelligent garden gnomes.
My views of rightness and wrongness are obviously not incompatible with "god". For that to be the case, you would have to specify your "god", not just throw the word around as an intellectual trump card every time you can't be bothered to argue your case.
Perhaps "god" allows people to discover moral truths for themselves. Perhaps not. Until you sketch him up to be a bit more than three letters, "god" is rather moot in this discussion.
Your horrid blanket statements aside, feel free to explain "sufficiently" why you live like there is objective morals.
Remember that the word "sufficiently" is very important here, it allows us to continue with rhetoric instead of arguments.
Nietzsche says DODN doesn't want bad guys to get away with doing bad things. He hasn't the courage to do those things himself and to do battle with his own conscience. He envies the strong.
You've failed to meaningfully engage with the last several of my posts. The line of reasoning I laid out in my last post is not dependent upon my "definition of objective morality". Or if it is, substantially engage with that post and demonstrate where - exactly - you require that definition before you could possibly continue.
We have different notions of morality. I'm sure we will have different notions of objective morality too, and probably what it means for morals to "exist" as per your definition. But that is irrelevant for the point I described and you have yet to respond to.
We have different notions of morality. I'm sure we will have different notions of objective morality too, and probably what it means for morals to "exist" as per your definition. But that is irrelevant for the point I described and you have yet to respond to.
Oh, we're naturalistic and deterministic now. I guess there is no end to the philosophical doctrines ordained by law for us to follow.
For the record, I don't have an "atheistic view of rightness and wrongness". It has been explained to you earlier, but I guess you were too busy spelling "inconsistent" to bother with something as trivial as reading posts. I have a view of rightness and wrongness, and I happen to be an atheist.
For the record, I don't have an "atheistic view of rightness and wrongness". It has been explained to you earlier, but I guess you were too busy spelling "inconsistent" to bother with something as trivial as reading posts. I have a view of rightness and wrongness, and I happen to be an atheist.
These two things are not related. I no more derive morals from my atheism than I do from my disbelief in invisible intelligent garden gnomes.
I've never met someone who doesn't care about human flourishing, although I'm aware rare cases of this exist. So we can presuppose that, and get to arguing about specific issues where my arguments where if I am clever and empathetic perhaps they will be persuasive and change the mind of my fellow humans. Whether the moral imperative of increasing human flourishing is or is not a fundamental property of the universe doesn't affect this. My arguments are exactly as persuasive or unpersuasive to the fellow human who values human flourishing.
Let me make it more personal. You presumably believe in human flourishing. Do you think it is impossible that I could present an argument on why some specific action should be taken in pursuit of this goal that persuades you? If yes, I have no reason to care about the "grounding" issue.
Let me make it more personal. You presumably believe in human flourishing. Do you think it is impossible that I could present an argument on why some specific action should be taken in pursuit of this goal that persuades you? If yes, I have no reason to care about the "grounding" issue.
I really - really - don't think going down the rabbit hole of trying to define "objective morality" is going to be more helpful than you actually responding. But since I suspect you will use my reticence on that point to yet again evade I will answer you to remove that escape hatch for you: I view moral discussion as a social attempt to codify behavioural norms based on shared values in society. I don't think morals "exist", as per your definition, in anything close to the kind of objective, universe-spanning, deity-bequeathed sense that you do.
I really - really - don't think going down the rabbit hole of trying to define "objective morality" is going to be more helpful than you actually responding.
But since I suspect you will use my reticence on that point to yet again evade I will answer you to remove that escape hatch for you: I view moral discussion as a social attempt to codify behavioural norms based on shared values in society.
One can redefine terms to make an argument valid. Example
If God exists, then ice cream is bad for you
God exists
Ice cream is bad for you
Let me redefine God to be "instant death upon eating of ice cream"
See? It does matter. It's fundamental. There shouldn't really be a problem with defining your terms.
I don't think morals "exist", as per your definition, in anything close to the kind of objective, universe-spanning, deity-bequeathed sense that you do.
imo
You don't see how death being the end of possible moral accountability makes death an escape hatch for moral accountability? An afterlife is necessary to hold people accountable for their moral choices, because death takes away the possibility of holding some accountable.
This doesn't seem like a meaningful response to the question. I don't see why your statement supports the claim that an afterlife is necessary.
But why don't you want bad guys to get away with doing bad things?
I know you think it's not a matter of - what do I want.
But it is.
Everything in philosophy is. Philosophy is not science and I am bemused that you're trying to treat it as such, as if analytic philosophy and precise definitions are all there is to philosophy.
Deep down, you know this is not the case.
Why don't you want bad guys to get away with doing bad things?
I know you think it's not a matter of - what do I want.
But it is.
Everything in philosophy is. Philosophy is not science and I am bemused that you're trying to treat it as such, as if analytic philosophy and precise definitions are all there is to philosophy.
Deep down, you know this is not the case.
Why don't you want bad guys to get away with doing bad things?
1) You have to first address the nature of how "moral accountability" is meted out. You've already been dodgy about this by mixing up the concept of "consequences" and "accountability." You seem to want to claim that they are the same, but have provided no particular reason that anyone should accept this.
2) You haven't really clarified a distinction between a moral ought and other types of oughts. Why would an ought like brushing my teeth be something that doesn't require an afterlife, but something like blowing myself up and taking people with me would?
3) You've not successfully argued the "pointlessness" of an ought that lacked "accountability." But this may also be tied up in your concepts of "accountability" and "consequences."
4) You seem to be claiming something along the lines of "if morality is objective, then there is necessarily an afterlife." But that's an extremely tenuous line of reasoning.
5) You have yet to declare what type standard one is actually being held accountable to in the example provided. This was the relevant exchange:
Originally Posted by you
If there is no accountability and no consequences, you can live as if it doesn't exist.
Originally Posted by me
If I jump off a cliff, the "consequence" is that I'll fall to my death... What standard am I being held accountable to?
Originally Posted by you
That's the question.
Originally Posted by you
Reward and punishment aren't necessary, but an afterlife is.
Originally Posted by me
This is a bold assertion. How would you support this claim?
Originally Posted by you
Because then physical death is an escape from moral obligation and accountability. I can blow up 20 people including myself and I 'get away with it.'
So to be absolutely clear:
1) What are your fundamental claims about morality?
2) Do you have anything other than an opinion to support these claims?
1) What are your fundamental claims about morality?
2) Do you have anything other than an opinion to support these claims?
1) You have to first address the nature of how "moral accountability" is meted out.
You've already been dodgy about this by mixing up the concept of "consequences" and "accountability."
You seem to want to claim that they are the same, but have provided no particular reason that anyone should accept this.
2) You haven't really clarified a distinction between a moral ought and other types of oughts.
Why would an ought like brushing my teeth be something that doesn't require an afterlife, but something like blowing myself up and taking people with me would?
Why would an ought like brushing my teeth be something that doesn't require an afterlife, but something like blowing myself up and taking people with me would?
3) You've not successfully argued the "pointlessness" of an ought that lacked "accountability." But this may also be tied up in your concepts of "accountability" and "consequences."
4) You seem to be claiming something along the lines of "if morality is objective, then there is necessarily an afterlife." But that's an extremely tenuous line of reasoning.
So to be absolutely clear:
1) What are your fundamental claims about morality?
2) Do you have anything other than an opinion to support these claims?
1) What are your fundamental claims about morality?
2) Do you have anything other than an opinion to support these claims?
The arguments I've elucidated have widespread agreement with some of the biggest minds in philosophy. Bertrand Russel, JL Mackie, Immanuel Kant, David Hume (3 of them atheists!!) all believed that objective moral values entail a God (or at very minimum a supernatural--for Kant, an afterlife) and/or do not exist. If they do not exist, then there is no such thing as right and wrong beyond preference. Conversely, those who claim there is no God and also claim objective moral oughts exist are being inconsistent.
I may be bad at putting forward the arguments, despite having received multiple PMs with assent over how clearly obvious is this logical truth. Nevertheless it has little to do with 'opinion' and if you think it does, I suggest you get to reading the arguments in their original forms.
Truth is for logic, maths and language, a tool to make sense of of the world. As far as I'm concerned asking for moral truths is like asking for metallic equations; Sure you can probably make it, but it's not in itself going to be some new spectacular way to do metalworking.
But feel free to at some point explain how your moral system and how it ticks avoids the inconsistencies you like to point out. It's beginning to sound an awful lot like your involvement in this thread is mostly about you wanting to belittle people.
Oh, I don't engage in your usage of "objective" on purpose. You are not using it in some philosophical sense, you are using it as a rhetorical trump card.
But feel free to at some point explain how your moral system and how it ticks avoids the inconsistencies you like to point out. It's beginning to sound an awful lot like your involvement in this thread is mostly about you wanting to belittle people.
My claim is you cannot derive morals from atheism, so in this we are in agreement. You should also look up the difference between a contingent truth and a necessary one. It shows how little awareness you have of the concepts you're speaking about when you conflate the two.
And the only way to make "morals" escape this simple principle is to elevate it to some sort of strange phenomena that ignores the world we live in. Which makes little sense, because it is evident that morals hinge on behaviors and outcomes. Murder tends to be seen as bad because people die.
Your solution to this seems to be some claim of "inescapable consequence", some mystic being that comes in at the end and waggles his finger. However, that doesn't really work. It's a bit like saying murder is bad because you go to jail. Sure, some people might think that way, but it's not exactly a view you'd want in your neighbor.
Here is my argument in point form:
1) There exists objective moral oughts
2) For objective moral oughts to exist and retain meaning they must be binding (people must be held accountable for disobeying them or they are effectively worthless)
3) To be held accountable for them one must be able to be held accountable for them after death as limited accountability removes binding
4) There is an immortal moral accountant (from 1, 2, 3)
5) There is an afterlife (from 1,2,3)
6) Atheistic moral claims must either describe a possible world in which 1) 2) and 3) are true but 4) and 5) don't follow or
7) Atheists must abandon 1)
1) There exists objective moral oughts
2) For objective moral oughts to exist and retain meaning they must be binding (people must be held accountable for disobeying them or they are effectively worthless)
3) To be held accountable for them one must be able to be held accountable for them after death as limited accountability removes binding
4) There is an immortal moral accountant (from 1, 2, 3)
5) There is an afterlife (from 1,2,3)
6) Atheistic moral claims must either describe a possible world in which 1) 2) and 3) are true but 4) and 5) don't follow or
7) Atheists must abandon 1)
Here is my argument in point form:
1) There exists objective moral oughts
2) For objective moral oughts to exist and retain meaning they must be binding (people must be held accountable for disobeying them or they are effectively worthless)
3) To be held accountable for them one must be able to be held accountable for them after death as limited accountability removes binding
4) There is an immortal moral accountant (from 1, 2, 3)
5) There is an afterlife (from 1,2,3)
6) Atheistic moral claims must either describe a possible world in which 1) 2) and 3) are true but 4) and 5) don't follow or
7) Atheists must abandon 1)
1) There exists objective moral oughts
2) For objective moral oughts to exist and retain meaning they must be binding (people must be held accountable for disobeying them or they are effectively worthless)
3) To be held accountable for them one must be able to be held accountable for them after death as limited accountability removes binding
4) There is an immortal moral accountant (from 1, 2, 3)
5) There is an afterlife (from 1,2,3)
6) Atheistic moral claims must either describe a possible world in which 1) 2) and 3) are true but 4) and 5) don't follow or
7) Atheists must abandon 1)
Furthermore there is no particular reason why theists must accept 1. That follows the same principle. Theism implies a belief in god(s), not belief in objective truth about morals, afterlives or moral accountability.
Truth is for logic, maths and language, a tool to make sense of of the world. As far as I'm concerned asking for moral truths is like asking for metallic equations; Sure you can probably make it, but it's not in itself going to be some new spectacular way to do metalworking.
And the only way to make "morals" escape this simple principle is to elevate it to some sort of strange phenomena that ignores the world we live in. Which makes little sense, because it is evident that morals hinge on behaviors and outcomes. Murder tends to be seen as bad because people die.
Your solution to this seems to be some claim of "inescapable consequence", some mystic being that comes in at the end and waggles his finger. However, that doesn't really work. It's a bit like saying murder is bad because you go to jail. Sure, some people might think that way, but it's not exactly a view you'd want in your neighbor.
Furthermore there is no particular reason why theists must accept 1.
There is nothing about atheism that contradicts Joe's beliefs or arguments.
This is because either term contains very little information about what a person actually believes.
There is nothing about atheism that contradicts Joe's beliefs or arguments.
The point is to try and explain to you that there is no real difference between what an "atheist" or a "theist" must or must not believe regarding objective morals.
This is because either term contains very little information about what a person actually believes.
I can believe I live on Mars too, until someone comes along and points out the inconsistency of my beliefs. I can surely continue to believe it as well, I'm just inconsistent and dishonest for doing so. Basically you want morality to be true because you can't fathom living in a universe in which child rape is not wrong. Unless you justify why it is wrong, then you're believing in something without justification, which is ironically exactly why you think theists are wrong about their god-belief. So not only are you inconsistent, you're also a hypocrite.
Yes there are, as I've pointed out, unless he attempts to justify it in some other way, as basically only OrP has attempted to do.
Yes there are, as I've pointed out, unless he attempts to justify it in some other way, as basically only OrP has attempted to do.
Which is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that atheism doesn't contradict Joe's position. Which has been your argument all along, that atheism is somehow in contradiction to a belief in objective morals.
So in that you're wrong.
In the same sense that if I say that theists use a prayer mat turned towards Mecca and pray five times per day, then I'm well beyond the label "theist".
An example could be sailors at sea with a compass. The atheists have concluded that the compass should not be relied upon for directions. On the other hand the Christians insist the compass points to true north and the vessel should continue to plot its course based on the divine instrument.
I can understand DODN's point of view in that everyone who has abandoned the compass is simply adrift, lost at sea. In this case, everyone on the ship may have an idea of which direction to sail in next. However, because they have abandoned the compass everyone's idea is equally good or bad (moral relativism).
Ultimately, I think DODN is foisting his worldview onto other people. If objective morality does not exist then that necessarily means everyone is destined for a life of futility and meaninglessness. From his perspective this is true because there is no replacement for God in an atheistic worldview.
I can understand DODN's point of view in that everyone who has abandoned the compass is simply adrift, lost at sea. In this case, everyone on the ship may have an idea of which direction to sail in next. However, because they have abandoned the compass everyone's idea is equally good or bad (moral relativism).
Ultimately, I think DODN is foisting his worldview onto other people. If objective morality does not exist then that necessarily means everyone is destined for a life of futility and meaninglessness. From his perspective this is true because there is no replacement for God in an atheistic worldview.
I think the problem with the analogy is that unlike the compass, the belief in god as a giver of morals is just that, a belief.
Sure, someone like Lagtight, who is a Christian literalist would be a bit tougher in this regard, because he would believe that at some points "God" (the capital G is important here) came down and handed people moral tenets, and he would point to the evidence of these events to argue his claim. Then we're a bit beyond belief and into a debate on quality of evidence. Which, in my eyes, is actually a fair bit more interesting.
The atheist is free to hold any belief he wants, or to have his own belief compass so to speak. I'm having difficulties seeing how this is in some way "worse" or less consistent than believing in god(s). This is not a hypothetical taken out of thin air either. You have variations of Buddhism which adheres to moral tenets that supposedly determine your "fate" (an ill-chosen word for Buddhism, but it's what we have), but does not entail belief in gods. Is the moral buddhist also lacking a compass?
I personally believe that morals are emergent behavior, because it's an explanation that fits the evidence well. If we can explain hunger because of the nature of the universe, I see no problem explaining morals because of the nature of the universe. If we don't eat, we die. If we have no morals, we die. Sure, we might need to tackle a few sociopaths, but we are only able to do that because we have morals. If we didn't, we wouldn't recognize them.
This doesn't hinge on "naturalism", "determinism", "materialism", "reductionism" or "atheism" or whatever other labels I must supposedly fit into. It's a simple conclusion gained from observing the world around us. It doesn't even, at the end of the day, mean that no gods exist. That's a separate issue and a separate debate.
I genuinely struggle to see what is supposedly "inconsistent" about it. I suspect those criticisms are really about god not being a necessary ingredient.
I'd still like to hear your answer. If it has something to do with a matter of 'degree', that would be an unstated component of your position and you would need to explain it.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
- Giving women the right to vote was a horrible sin, because they should remain silent.
- Viewing humans as animals was a sin, because it took away humans' special position in creation
- Opposing apartheid is horrible, because <insert arbitrary skin color> people are superior
- Being in favor of dismantling nuclear weapons is unpatriotic, because it means less power to discourage war
And being able to dismantle positions like, tough cultural positions so ingrained in a society that they become second nature, without invoking or hinting at "anything goes" is a very tough task. The first ones out the gate need to be very strong in spirit.
Well, Nietzsche has a good point.
- Giving women the right to vote was a horrible sin, because they should remain silent.
- Viewing humans as animals was a sin, because it took away humans' special position in creation
- Opposing apartheid is horrible, because <insert arbitrary skin color> people are superior
- Being in favor of dismantling nuclear weapons is unpatriotic, because it means less power to discourage war
And being able to dismantle positions like, tough cultural positions so ingrained in a society that they become second nature, without invoking or hinting at "anything goes" is a very tough task. The first ones out the gate need to be very strong in spirit.
- Giving women the right to vote was a horrible sin, because they should remain silent.
- Viewing humans as animals was a sin, because it took away humans' special position in creation
- Opposing apartheid is horrible, because <insert arbitrary skin color> people are superior
- Being in favor of dismantling nuclear weapons is unpatriotic, because it means less power to discourage war
And being able to dismantle positions like, tough cultural positions so ingrained in a society that they become second nature, without invoking or hinting at "anything goes" is a very tough task. The first ones out the gate need to be very strong in spirit.
I predicted when I made my post that even though I jumped through your hoops and gave a definition with explicit reluctance, that you would still not actually address the line of reasoning you were demanding a definition of before addressing. I was right. And I'm out. Enjoy the dogpile.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE