My gift to you: Lawrence Krauss' head on a platter
What's the difference between a movie whose path (unknown to our lead actor) is determined from beginning to end, and a movie in which the path could have taken all manner of Free Will-driven turns (whatever that would look like) and turns out the way it did? How could someone differentiate between the two? Could our lead actor tell the difference?
I don't know possibly how you can't understand it. It's pretty basic. Objective moral oughts entail some sort of moral accountability otherwise moral oughts, if they exist, are pointless (you can live as if they don't exist). Moral accountability entails an afterlife because if it's escapable by death then it doesn't apply to people who weren't able to be held accountable in life. Get it yet?
The nature of the assumptions you've thrown in make your argument extremely weak.
Not really. I know gravity is real but I don't have to be able to explain exactly how it works for it to be true. See ball fall? Ball falls because of invisible force! Similarly, without an account of moral right and wrong actions, then anyone can live as they wish without repurcussions/consequence/being held accountable. The whole basis of moral responsibility is undercut.
No I haven't. You've just read more into what I'm saying than I've said.
(1)
Originally Posted by me
How are you using the words "accountability" and "consequences." If I jump off a cliff, the "consequence" is that I'll fall to my death. Is that also a form of "accountability" in your mind?
Originally Posted by you
It might be, I'll have to think more about this.
Originally Posted by me
First, there can be consequences for speeding relative simply to speeding and not due to some external agency. For example, you are more likely to lose control of your vehicle if you are speeding. This is simply a consequence of speeding. Do you view this as a form of "accountability" as well?
Originally Posted by you
I probably do, yes, but it's not sufficient.
They pretty clearly aren't the same, and nowhere have I claimed that they are.
One is a function of the other, but consequences don't necessarily need to happen in order to provide an account. If no one is keeping score, then there are no losers or winners in the game. Understand? That's not the same as saying 'losing the game makes you feel bad' (consequence), although consequences might happen as a result of 'losing the game' they don't necessarily have to.
This is one of the stupidest questions I've ever read, no offense.
Sure I have. See above.
Originally Posted by you
It's like a law against speeding. If there are no consequences for speeding, and no one to hold you accountable, then the prescription is pointless.
Originally Posted by me
3) You've not successfully argued the "pointlessness" of an ought that lacked "accountability."
It's not a line of reasoning, it's a premise; one I have defended. You're either not reading the clear logical reasons why such is the case that I have provided, or you're ignoring them on purpose.
I've already noted that you have a lot of implicit assumptions in this and that it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Do you know what philosophy is?
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.
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.
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)
The problems you're having have a lot to do with your implicit assertions. For example, (2) introduces the concept of "meaning" for an ought and uses the hedge word "effectively" as if you know you're avoiding an obvious conclusion. In (3) you introduce "limited" accountability which creates another category of accountability that you have to reckon with.
It's bad all around, and it feels like you're just kind of making this argument up as you go because you have to keep introducing new things into it to keep moving it forward.
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)
But on this, very quickly:
1) As I said before, I think you are implicitly making the word "objective" mean more than it actually does.
2) it is not true that moral oughts must be binding to "retain meaning".
3) it is not true that accountability can only occur after death.
4 and 5) do not actually follow from (1), (2), and (3) as stated, even granting the truth of (2) and (3), because of the conditionality with which you've stated your argument. In other words you're saying that if moral oughts retain meaning because they are enforced in the afterlife, then an "immortal moral accountant" exists. One could just as easily accept those conditional statements, but deny that any such accountability exists, and therefore objective moral oughts exist but do not "retain meaning" in the sense you've stated. You're missing the step where you actually assert that moral oughts really are binding in an afterlife, and really do have meaning.
6) this is wrong. Atheists can reject (2) or (3) or both while accepting (1). Neither (2) nor (3) follow from (1) at all.
What's the difference between a movie whose path (unknown to our lead actor) is determined from beginning to end, and a movie in which the path could have taken all manner of Free Will-driven turns (whatever that would look like) and turns out the way it did? How could someone differentiate between the two? Could our lead actor tell the difference?
I pointed out above that I don't read the philosophers. I read DOND's posts and disagree w/ the necessity of god part bec if we have free will I don't see why we can't construct a moral order ourselves. It's my conclusion that if there's no god AND there's no free will it's idiotic to speak of what is moral and what is not bec they don't exist. The universe is in charge, we are part of a cast and we each speak our lines and act our parts and everything is out of our hands, which, if that's the case, I see no possible way to make one actor's part superior to another's.
Now you are arguing that Joe is wrong, not that he is inconsistent.
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.
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.
But DODN has shifted to a Kantian-style argument that claims the existence of God and immortality is a necessary assumption of objective morality, as they are the only means to a just world. This argument, if successful, would show that if Joe believes that morality is objective, then he would be inconsistent if he also believed there wasn't a god.
EDIT: I know your view of atheism doesn't require believing there isn't a god, but DODN's argument can't be accepted by Joe and him remain an atheist even on your account of atheism.
I think you're wrong here. DoOrDoNot started out with a Humean-style argument saying that there is no way for atheists to provide a foundation for objective morals because of is-ought problems. To this argument you can respond as you do here by pointing out that it isn't contradictory for Joe to believe in objective morals and be an atheist - he'll can just say he doesn't know what the foundation of objective morals is, which doesn't imply that God does or does not exist.
But DODN has shifted to a Kantian-style argument that claims the existence of God and immortality is a necessary assumption of objective morality, as they are the only means to a just world. This argument, if successful, would show that if Joe believes that morality is objective, then he would be inconsistent if he also believed there wasn't a god.
EDIT: I know your view of atheism doesn't require believing there isn't a god, but DODN's argument can't be accepted by Joe and him remain an atheist even on your account of atheism.
But DODN has shifted to a Kantian-style argument that claims the existence of God and immortality is a necessary assumption of objective morality, as they are the only means to a just world. This argument, if successful, would show that if Joe believes that morality is objective, then he would be inconsistent if he also believed there wasn't a god.
EDIT: I know your view of atheism doesn't require believing there isn't a god, but DODN's argument can't be accepted by Joe and him remain an atheist even on your account of atheism.
Sure we can have a thought experiment where the Kantian-style argument is true, and in that experiment Joe's view would be inconsistent with truth. But in the practical world what we're looking at is really an implicit disagreement.
In that sense I see "inconsistent" as a far heavier accusation than "wrong". Inconsistency implies that Joe's view doesn't hold up on its own merits, while wrong means it doesn't hold up on DODN's merits. In the first case we don't have a debate, in the latter case we do.
I guess we should distinguish between internal inconsistency and external inconsistency, or use some other suitable (formal?) term. That would keep things more clear.
LEMONZEST
Very cool. I will say (and I remember this pretty vaguely) that I have a pretty positive recollection of your interactions on this forum, particularly in that you were regularly at least trying to internalize your opponents points and much less of the typical talking past each other that can occur too often (ex this thread). Having an open mind is just so crucial for so many things, yet we probably all fail at this far more than we like to let on.
Welcome back Lemonzest.
LEMONZEST
If I had to bet I would bet you had some Christian background that was instrumental in leading you to the conclusions you are arguing for ITT. It very well could just be projection but I bet I am right.
Maybe that is why Nietzsche resonates so much with me is because he also lived in a time of Christian saturation and felt the loss of shedding that worldview. If one is raised with a secular worldview that person won't understand why "God is dead" is a groundbreaking statement.
Without Christian saturation "God is dead" does not have the same shattering affect on people. For this reason your arguments ITT are falling on deaf ears because people simply don't care about God or his role as an independent moral arbiter.
The secular world can get along fine morally speaking by building morality from two starting points. Despite not having a god to look to human societies have some shared common values (consensus) which serve us well in day to day life (ie we all agree chocolate ice cream is best). The second way which I think is a little bit overlooked in this thread is our evolutionary biology. Morality must be more than consensus otherwise why were the Nazi's wrong? As humans we have innate inclinations given to us through our evolution as a species. For example, don't rape, don't kill large groups of people, don't hurt kids etc. As a Christian I would have thought these inclinations were conviction from God which I think is an important distinction to make.
Best implies that there are other types of ice cream, which I reject.
Are you saying that you can't come in first in a one person race?
If I want dental hygiene--> I brush my teeth. This ought is consistent with my ends. If I want to murder a busload of children--->I ought to plant a bomb. However that would be inconsistent with the overriding moral ought of 'it's wrong to murder.'
This is a poor analogy. It's poor in the sense that one does not suggest the other. I can watch balls fall. I can't watch moral accountability.
I've read nothing into what you've said. I'm observing that you haven't given a straight answer to the question. If you can find a quote where you've given me a straight answer about the nature of accountability and consequence, I'll rescind my accusation. Here's what I see:
Both answers appear evasive and neither one adequately addresses the issue.
That's okay. The point is to make you explain yourself. The most reasonable answer I've seen so far from you is "imo" because you don't seem to realize that you're just asserting a bunch of stuff without providing a reasonable rationale.
Your argument sucks. But at least this is an organized level of suckage.
The problems you're having have a lot to do with your implicit assertions. For example, (2) introduces the concept of "meaning" for an ought and uses the hedge word "effectively" as if you know you're avoiding an obvious conclusion. In (3) you introduce "limited" accountability which creates another category of accountability that you have to reckon with.
It's bad all around, and it feels like you're just kind of making this argument up as you go because you have to keep introducing new things into it to keep moving it forward.
The problems you're having have a lot to do with your implicit assertions. For example, (2) introduces the concept of "meaning" for an ought and uses the hedge word "effectively" as if you know you're avoiding an obvious conclusion. In (3) you introduce "limited" accountability which creates another category of accountability that you have to reckon with.
It's bad all around, and it feels like you're just kind of making this argument up as you go because you have to keep introducing new things into it to keep moving it forward.
1) Do moral oughts entail moral justice or not?
2) Is death as escape from moral justice? Then there must be an afterlife or justice is limited to this life and those that are not punished in this life get away with wrongdoing.
3) If moral justice continues after death, the best explanation is an immortal judge/accountant
4) If you dispense with the notion of a moral judge a priori as atheists do, then you dispense with the existence of moral oughts.
Yes, I mean no.
I got nothing, you win.
I got nothing, you win.
Since there's a lot of overlapping arguments going on and (for example) a lot of your back and forth with uke_master is on similar points that we were discussing, I'm probably going to wait a bit before going back to address some things. Just FYI the intention isn't to ignore them.
But on this, very quickly:
1) As I said before, I think you are implicitly making the word "objective" mean more than it actually does.
But on this, very quickly:
1) As I said before, I think you are implicitly making the word "objective" mean more than it actually does.
2) it is not true that moral oughts must be binding to "retain meaning".
3) it is not true that accountability can only occur after death.
4 and 5) do not actually follow from (1), (2), and (3) as stated, even granting the truth of (2) and (3), because of the conditionality with which you've stated your argument. In other words you're saying that if moral oughts retain meaning because they are enforced in the afterlife, then an "immortal moral accountant" exists. One could just as easily accept those conditional statements, but deny that any such accountability exists, and therefore objective moral oughts exist but do not "retain meaning" in the sense you've stated. You're missing the step where you actually assert that moral oughts really are binding in an afterlife, and really do have meaning.
'Race' implies there is more than one person. You could even race against yourself, but it would be a prior you, and would still include more than one person. So no, you can't come in first in a one person race because you can't have a race with only one person.
The idea of God being an independent (could read objective) moral arbiter for mankind is mainly promulgated by the 3 main Abrahamic religions. There are not very many "non-believers" talking about how mankind is at a moral loss without an eternal judge.
If I had to bet I would bet you had some Christian background that was instrumental in leading you to the conclusions you are arguing for ITT. It very well could just be projection but I bet I am right.
I have always liked Nietzsche even when I was a lock stock and barrel Christian. Yes God is necessary and we are screwed without him...I agree with this...but this belief is unique to me (or others like me). I lived in a saturated Christian environment and exited that world so naturally I feel this loss. However, I don't expect someone raised in Scandinavia who has lived their life as a default atheist to share my sentiments.
Maybe that is why Nietzsche resonates so much with me is because he also lived in a time of Christian saturation and felt the loss of shedding that worldview. If one is raised with a secular worldview that person won't understand why "God is dead" is a groundbreaking statement.
Maybe that is why Nietzsche resonates so much with me is because he also lived in a time of Christian saturation and felt the loss of shedding that worldview. If one is raised with a secular worldview that person won't understand why "God is dead" is a groundbreaking statement.
Without Christian saturation "God is dead" does not have the same shattering affect on people. For this reason your arguments ITT are falling on deaf ears because people simply don't care about God or his role as an independent moral arbiter.
The secular world can get along fine morally speaking by building morality from two starting points. Despite not having a god to look to human societies have some shared common values (consensus) which serve us well in day to day life (ie we all agree chocolate ice cream is best). The second way which I think is a little bit overlooked in this thread is our evolutionary biology. Morality must be more than consensus otherwise why were the Nazi's wrong? As humans we have innate inclinations given to us through our evolution as a species. For example, don't rape, don't kill large groups of people, don't hurt kids etc. As a Christian I would have thought these inclinations were conviction from God which I think is an important distinction to make.
- If reading history should disincline lemonzest from the view that people are inclined to act in certain ways then it seems like it should also disincline you from the view that ought statements have to be binding in order to exist. :P
- From your response with regard to your argument it seems to me that you are just defining morality in a very specific way and as long as you do so then sure, naturalists (if not atheists necessarily) should reject your (1). But they are not being inconsistent when they talk about morality, they just usually don't mean the same thing as you do. But I would say your usage is further from both popular usage and philosophical usage than the way atheists generally talk about "morality".
- If "meaning" is the wrong word re: (2) then you should probably stop referring to atheists as nihilists. A lot of this conversation is you getting a reaction because you're using words with negative connotations in an idiosyncratic way and also trying to apply them to overly large groups. It isn't inconsistent for an atheist to believe in metaphysically grounded morals, or even a naturalist. This is OrP's argument about "moral platonism". But it also isn't nihilism to disbelieve that moral precepts are enforced metaphysically after death, but rather by more prosaic means.
- I would be interested in your reasons for believing that justice/accountability "must happen".
- From your response with regard to your argument it seems to me that you are just defining morality in a very specific way and as long as you do so then sure, naturalists (if not atheists necessarily) should reject your (1). But they are not being inconsistent when they talk about morality, they just usually don't mean the same thing as you do. But I would say your usage is further from both popular usage and philosophical usage than the way atheists generally talk about "morality".
- If "meaning" is the wrong word re: (2) then you should probably stop referring to atheists as nihilists. A lot of this conversation is you getting a reaction because you're using words with negative connotations in an idiosyncratic way and also trying to apply them to overly large groups. It isn't inconsistent for an atheist to believe in metaphysically grounded morals, or even a naturalist. This is OrP's argument about "moral platonism". But it also isn't nihilism to disbelieve that moral precepts are enforced metaphysically after death, but rather by more prosaic means.
- I would be interested in your reasons for believing that justice/accountability "must happen".
Does this stuff apply to Neanderthal Man (or future chimps that learned to speak)?
Nietzche was well aware that without God there was no grounding for morality, purpose, meaning, or any of that, and he predicted it would be a disaster for mankind. It was and remains to be. Ideology largley rushed in to fill the vacuum, which probably killed about 100 million people in the 20th century.
And also you forgot the part where Nietzche holds the person who constructs his own morality as the strongest.
But hey, details.
LEMONZEST
The compass analogy was really an appeal to emotion. If you have never been religious then the "moral" may not resonate with you. The idea is that the compass is a tremendous comfort to the believer. When the believer leaves their faith there is no replacement for the comfort and direction provided by God (the compass).
Relative to the believer the atheist is lost at sea with no sense of direction. tame_deuces you are lost at sea with no sense of direction from the believer's point of view. However, I am sure you do not view yourself in this way.
It is a matter of perspective. DODN is basically telling you that you are a nihilist (lost at sea with no true morals or sense of direction). However, from your perspective your life does have meaning and you have your own sense of morality.
I personally believe that morals are emergent behavior, because it's an explanation that fits the evidence well.
Even for those that believe in God as an independent (objective) moral arbiter they are still stuck with an ever evolving moral code. Consider the many laws ordained by God in the Old Testament and then the transition of lifestyle from that era to the New Testament. Furthermore, many cultural and moral rules changed from the New Testament to present day....
Maybe what DODN means is that God is the final judge because even within Christianity God is not an immutable moral reference point.
Certainly, the world is an unfair place. In order for 'justice to be done,' that would necessitate that justice be able to be done after death.
This really shows the rabbit hole that you're creating. Every time I push you further, you just insert another word. And so it goes on and on.
You can call my argument weak but if you can't even think of an alternative then your assertion is the thing that's weak.
Lol that's not true at all. I watched precisely that when I watched Breaking Bad. I don't know how it's meted out, or why, but I'm relatively confident that it is. We even try to mimic it with our courts and institutions, etc.
Going point by point is a waste time because you've already repeatedly demonstrated your pattern of argumentation.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE