jlowder

What do you mean by "reason of being"?

Defiant Heretic

The following essay refutes the Moral Argument
by analyzing Plato's Dilemna:
<a href="http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/god_ethics.htm" target="_blank">Are God and Ethics Inseparable or Incompatible?</a>

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Defiant Heretic ]</p>

jlowder

Is it impossible to get on-topic replies in this thread? Look, I'm already well familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma as a response to the moral argument, and I am very familiar with Robin Le Poidevin's chapter on God and ethics (republished on Niclas Berggren's site). I'm asking for a definition of "ontological foundation."

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

not a theist

To have an ontological foundation is to be based upon being. Here, "being" is understood (by me) as the equivalent of "reality".
So really, the question would seem to be "what does it mean for something to be based on reality?"

Scorpion

Hmm... it might be helpful to know in which terms you want it defined Did you find my definition - fundamental and irreducible property of reality - as begging the question even more, irrelevant, incomprehensible or just plain false?
In fact, having thought if this a bit more it is false Something having an ontological foundation of course means that "it" is in ontologically necessary relation to the fundamental and irreducible properties of reality (is this just more gibberish?)...

and then, off topic again:

I assume you're referring to the phrase "average apologist". Sorry, that was careless use of language from my part - I didn't mean it in "mediocre apologist" sense but "J. Random Apologist" sense (you of course might find the latter offensive as well, but it doesn't imply anything about the faculties of quality of anyone making this kind of claim)...
I didn't understand most of what you went on about "fact of belief" - however, that part of my posting wasn't intended to make a compelling argument in the first place but to simply show where I stand in the matter.


...so, please let's all decide that objective morality exists in order to stop major shit from happening? How is this different from deciding to align our intersubjective moralities in order to stop major shit from happening (of course those whose moral systems don't include not wanting shit to happen would be out of the discussion, but they wouldn't be too compelled by your argument either, would they?)

-S-

dk

dk: - It seems to me metaphysics is essential to the treatment of irreducible properties, so excluding metaphysics as transcendental moon shine impedes a fruitful inquiry. For example Kant’s metaethics is a practical effort to reestablish the categorical imperative within a metaphysical reality, but the delay demotes moral science to the authority of psychology that is ungrounded (detached from reality) by the mind-body problem. The entire inquiry remains speculative, and undermines the whole enterprise.
dk: - Craig didn’t support his statement either (nor did I), but I think he has a legitimate point that needs address. My criticism of positive knowledge (positive logic, positivism, empiricism, extreme realism) is the lack of an ontological foundation, for which pragmatists, utilitarians, and empiricists substitute a criticism of theism. For example “Divine Command Theory” is the invention of theistic critics, followed by a “vote for me, I’ll set you free” appeal to the mob.
dk: - The problem is that inter-subjective morality is incomprehensible therefore unreliable. This is manifest in the discrepancy between folk psychology, and scientific psychology. The one thing Western Civilization got right (up until the 1960s) was an honest open ended appeal for the dignities of human life i.e. civilized people solve problems by persuading people, not killing them. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Bin Laden view killing people as a means to solve problems.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

EvilTeuf

jlowder: Just shows I shouldn't rely on my (admittedly) poor memory...

dk

Ontological is the adjective form of the noun ontology, the study of being. So an “ontological foundation” would be the underlying elements and relationships necessary to render a ‘thing’ or ‘being’ intelligible. Stuff like consciousness, potency, act, identity, will, ideas, accidents, consequences, finite, infinite, personality, agents, etc., are used to explain being human. The ontological foundation of chemistry is molecules, atom, protons, neutrons and electrons. The ontological foundation of physics is length, time and mass. The ontological foundation of biology is cells, proteins, organs, species, phylum etc... That’s roughly what I understand ontological foundation to mean.

WJ

jlowder!

I would certainly think that one could include conscience into the ontological mix of Being.

RogerLeeCooke

Beats me. "Ont-" is the root of the Greek participle meaning "being." Why people erect these artificial needs and then insist on them in the teeth of all the evidence that morality has *causes*, namely social pressure and education, is beyond me.

Can any of the people who claim this need explain why Ralph Ginsburg went to jail in 1963 for publishing "Eros," which was so dull (I bought it) that if it were used as an issue of Hustler, it would put Larry Flynt out of business. On the other hand, I distinctly remember seeing parents on TV in the 1950s, proudly cutting apples off their kids' foreheads with an axe, throwing knives at their kids, etc., things that would get THEM put in jail now. Don't tell me morality doesn't change.