dostf

Kent:

-Having read many of your responses, it seems to me you are well meaning, polite individual
-it is sad that such individuals are held in any belief system
- as others are commenting directly on your posts, i will only offer that you read the bible again by removing the word "holy" from the title
- read is as you might any other book as reasonably as possible and evaluate what is said exactly as written

Good luck

Be seeing you...

Buffman

Vorkosigan

KENT: Everyone starts with his own presupposition that cannot be proven directly.

After reading that remark, I have to wonder if he understands the differences between presupposition and presumption? A presupposition is merely taking something for granted without the necessity of reasonable evidence. As a child we are told that there is a God that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. We are also conditioned to believe that there is a devil (Satan) that is almost as powerful, almost as all-knowing and absolutely all-bad. Thus we begin with a presupposition that everything we have been told is "true" because it is based on the supposedly reasonable evidence that our parents/friends would not intentionally lie to us. However, as some humans mature and increase their knowledge base, they discover what "reasonable evidence" really means. They learn that evidence that is not verifiable is not as sound as evidence that is. These people are able to move from the presupposition (faith) stage into a full supposition (presumption based on verifiable evidence) mode worldview. (A presumption is an acceptance of belief based on reasonable evidence; an assumption or supposition.)

Unfortunately, most children find it difficult to demand that their parents/friends present the evidence, which most would not be able to verify at this stage of their critical analysis development, for the sincere statements that have been made to them. Instead they are told to read a certain book, talk to a certain individual, or simply pray for enlightenment, and all will eventually be revealed. Well, I read that book, several times, and discovered just how filled with errors, contradictions and obscene mayhem it really is. I talked to the designated individuals and most proved to be conditioned automatons incapable of thinking ourside their specific dogmas. I saw little to be achieved from practicing ritual prayers of self-hypnosis. So I decided to determine the actual origins of this so-called Holy Book. That is when I discovered that it was a book crafted for its psychological propaganda and indoctrination value on the human mind not able to make a critical analysis of its content, omissions or obvious contradictions. (That does not mean that this book, as are many other sacred writings and books, is not filled with some outstanding examples of positive and constructive social mores and folkways which contribute to the survival of the species.)

That would tend to support the Ierrellus post which concludes that the human animal has a basic "Infantile morality [which] cannot see beyond good and evil." (Although I might change "good and evil" to "right and wrong" or "good and bad.") However, the only thing that make humans unique from all other living things is our capability to apply self-aware reasoning to our own existence and to the universe in which we exist...if we will arm our minds with the most accurate knowledge available and then critically process that knowledge into action.

Kent Symanzik

Maybe you can elaborate on why you don't think it is possible.

If presupposing the Christian God provides a foundation for our reasoning, logic, epistomology, and ethics doesn't it fit reality quite well?

Why would we want a worldview that has no relevance to the real world?

Kent

Kent Symanzik

A morality without obligation is not a morality. Maybe we should come up with another term for what you and others have been describing. Morality is prescriptive. It tells us what we ought to do. What you are talking about is simply descriptive. It simply tells us the way things are. It tells us not how to act but simply how we act.

The next question then is do you actually live that way? I suppose you can. You will only be irrational if you try to judge right from wrong. When a child is abducted and killed to satify the lust of a perverted man you will not be able to rationally condemn that act. You could say that you don't like it but you cannot say that it was wrong. But, the pervert can simply say, hey this is the way I act. I was acting according to my code. Ironically, the pervert will be the one who is rational at that point.

My point being that I don't think you can really live without an objective moral code.

Kent

tronvillain

Kent Symanzik:
The term "subjective morality" is sufficiently descriptive, so there is no need to invent another term. What it tells us is how we want to act, and how we want others to act. The prescriptions you desire emerge from the sum of the various individual subjective moralities of a society. We say to each other "Do not kill. If you do, we will punish you." for the simple reason that we fear dying and dislike the deaths of others.

Of course I actually live that way - there does not seem to be any other way to live. There is nothing irrational about me judging "right" from "wrong", just as there is nothing irrational about you judging "tasty" from "disgusting." If a child is abducted and killed to satify the lust of a perverted man I will be perfectly able to rationally condemn that act. I will say, "Your actions disgust and anger me.", which is a perfectly reasonable statement. He would be perfectly rational in replying "Hey this is the way I act. I was acting according to my code.", but so what? That does not rationally prevent us from punishing him. Perhaps that is what scares you about subjective morality - the idea that someone you consider "evil" could be rational.

Yet you and I manage to do it every day.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

I'm not going to quibble about this definition. I think we basically agree here.

I have no problem with this as long as the condemnation or punishment is not making a statement about good or evil. It is, as you say, simply a matter of taste.

My point on morality has simply been that an atheist cannot rationally hold to a moral standard. By moral I mean a standard that differentiates between good and evil and obligates people to live by it.

I recognize your "subjective morality" as simply a matter of taste. No one is obligated to live by your morality although they may suffer if they do not. That is simply a matter of their own choice. But, they will not suffer because they actually did anything evil.

This I cannot agree with. I think most societies have a sense of real objective morality. When we arrest and convict a child molester we have no problem saying that he was evil. I do not see your subjective morality corresponding with reality.

Maybe it would help to try to imagine what it would be like if we really lived by your "subjective morality". We could easily recognize that child molesters are simply built differently than those who do not enjoy molesting children. Therefore, it may make the most sense to simply clone children and put them into brothels for child molesters. That way the molesters could act out without affecting the rest of society. We would effectively limit this distasteful act to specific areas.

The sky is the limit with this "subjective morality".

And I also admit that your "subjective morality" may have been a reality during the reign of Hitler. In fact, he was doing something similar to what I described didn't he. He declared a group of people as being not fit for the rest of the human race and proceeded to dispose of them.

So, maybe we can say that your "subjective morality" has been in vogue at certain times at least.

Thanks for the great dialogue.

Kent

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Kent Symanzik ]</p>

Ierrellus

Kent,

Do you believe in the existence of a Sufi saint?

Ierrellus
PAX

tronvillain

Kent Subjective:
Most societies have prescriptive rules and associated punishments, but they emerge from the sum of the individual subjective moralities that make up the society. Saying that "When we arrest and convinct a child molester we have no problem saying that he was evil." simply means that most of us are disgusted and angered by child molestation. While you may not see it, subjective morality precisely corresponds with reality.

Did you really expect anyone to find that pathetic line of argument complelling? Any thinking person recognizes that child molesters are constructed differently than those otherwise inclined, but the fact is that it results in actions that disguest and anger us. A clone would simply be another human being, so anyone who objected to the molestation of children would object to the molestation of a cloned child. Now, if robotic replicas were used your idea might have some merit.

It is always a reality, whether people admit it or not. There was subjective morality during Hitler's reign in Germany, there was subjective morality in Ancient Israel, and there is subjective morality today in the United States. Some people simply prefer to pretend otherwise.

Vorkosigan

I have no problem with this as long as the condemnation or punishment is not making a statement about good or evil. It is, as you say, simply a matter of taste.

It is a statement about good or evil. Morals are compelling on oneself in a way that tastes are not. This is how people behave in the real world. Again, your point fails.

My point on morality has simply been that an atheist cannot rationally hold to a moral standard.

But atheists do have moral standards, and defend them rationally. So you need to adjust your view, since it does not account for reality.

The real humor here is that you think defining a Canaanite sky god as the universal god gives you a rational basis for morality. Presuppositions are by definition not rational, so you have in effect argued that your morality is irrational.

By moral I mean a standard that differentiates between good and evil and obligates people to live by it.

All atheists that I know have those standards, and feel themselves obligated to live by them. Some subjectivists feel that their morals ought to be universalized as they are the best (but do not regard them as moral absolutes the way you do); others believe that their ethics are compelling only on themselves.

I recognize your "subjective morality" as simply a matter of taste. No one is obligated to live by your morality although they may suffer if they do not. That is simply a matter of their own choice. But, they will not suffer because they actually did anything evil.

If you mean "suffer eternal punishment," no, that is a myth to frighten small children. Kent, atheists are people who do not need a god in order to behave ethically.

This I cannot agree with. I think most societies have a sense of real objective morality. When we arrest and convict a child molester we have no problem saying that he was evil. I do not see your subjective morality corresponding with reality.

I never knew any subjectivist who thought child molestation wasn't evil. You are all confused. One does not need an absolute standard to claim that a given act is evil.

"Child molestation is evil." There, I did it. If I want to convince you, I might need a shared standard. Or, I might need good arguments. Or, you might simply be awed by my authority. But on that one, I doubt you'll need much convincing.

Maybe it would help to try to imagine what it would be like if we really lived by your "subjective morality".

Since we do live by subjective morality, we need merely look at the world.

We could easily recognize that child molesters are simply built differently than those who do not enjoy molesting children.

We DO recognize that! That's why we separate ourselves from them.

Therefore, it may make the most sense to simply clone children and put them into brothels for child molesters.

You're sick. Why does this make sense? Or is it that you think children are not human beings too? Kent, children grow up.

You seem to think that "subjective morality" means "everything is OK." Subjective morality means that there is nothing outside our conversation that we can appeal to. All moral stances are created by humans, and have to be negotiated between humans. Subjective morality does not free one from moral compulsion, it simply recognizes that moral compulsion does not come from outside human beings.

That way the molesters could act out without affecting the rest of society.

So your position is that cloned children are not fully human. If this sickness is "objective morality," I'll take subjective morality any day of the week. Never have I heard a subjectivist argue that it is OK to molest some children.

We would effectively limit this distasteful act to specific areas.

You wish to tolerate it but limit it. I believe I speak for everyone here in saying that we subjectivists all want to see it stopped.

The sky is the limit with this "subjective morality".

Certainly, with your sick version of it.

And I also admit that your "subjective morality" may have been a reality during the reign of Hitler. In fact, he was doing something similar to what I described didn't he. He declared a group of people as being not fit for the rest of the human race and proceeded to dispose of them.

Hitler, like you, was a theist and a moral absolutist. You seem rather unfamiliar with history, as well as morality.

So, maybe we can say that your "subjective morality" has been in vogue at certain times at least.

Nazism, Communism, Christianity, Islam, Facism, are all absolutist authority systems.

An absolute morality, Kent, is rhetorical agggrandizement designed to give its advocate control over the minds and bodies of others.

Subjectivists tend to prize values like tolerance, humanism, openness, freedom of expression, diversity, and so on. These are moral strategies designed to create societies where people can maximize moral discourse and opportunities for growth and progress.

Your beliefs are about power and control. Your ethical thinking is incompatible with life in a democratic society. It is no wonder you are opposed to subjectivism.

Vorkosigan

Kent Symanzik

Hi Vorkosigan,

One thing I know for sure is that atheist have different views on what subjective morality is. I think I understand tronvillain's view and I think it can be rationally held because he admits that it is not obligatory and does not differentiate between good and evil.

Please defend how an atheist can rationally have moral standards that are obligatory and differentiate between good and evil. I don't think you have made your case for that yet.

If a person is going to think rationally he must first at least presuppose that the laws of logic hold and are universal and invariant. In other words, when it comes to ultimate issues of epistomology, rationality, and ethics everyone must presuppose a starting point.

Furthermore, there is no way to prove your presuppositions directly because in order to do that you will have to presuppose something else. So, the only way to prove our presuppositions is to push them to find out if they really provide a rational foundation for things that are necessary for rationality, epistomology, and ethics.

I have been asking for a rational explanation for these things in an atheistic worldview. If you can provide a basis for morality that is rational, please do.

Like I have said before I do not think that atheists can provide such a foundation because the metaphysical nature of atheistic worldviews is impersonal. We are, after all, just a bag of chemicals, or transforming energy, etc. These things do not have morals. Persons have morals because people have intrinsic value. In an atheistic world how do bags of chemicals become persons with value? We are simply a product of chemical reactions that happened to come together in a particular way. Somehow these chemicals provide a mechanism to think but all of our thinking is no different than a can of pop fissing away. It is just acting. What could possibly make our bag of chemicals different from any other substance that is reacting according to its nature? In an atheistic world, personhood is just a feeling from some chemical reaction. Nothing more.

Vorkosigan, I believe you when you say that you are moral. You probably have very high standards of morality. But my point is that your morality does not comport with your worldview. Your worldview is not providing your foundation for your morals.

I'm sure you disagree with me since you have claimed that you do have a basis for your ethics. Can you explain to me what this basis is?

Thanks for your patience.

Kent

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Kent Symanzik ]</p>