FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-02-2002, 11:29 AM   #41
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Tercel:
<strong>We would seem to have 3 possibilities for morality:
There is some moral standard universally applicable (Objectivism)
Moral standards differ validly from person to person and/or culture to culture (Relativism)
There are no moral standards (Nihilism)</strong>
False dichotomy, trichotomy, whatever. But I'll agree that Nihilism is unacceptable simply because it offers no avenue for the advancement of understanding. But, I'll play along as if these are the only choices.

Quote:
<strong>But it's those who insist that Objectivism can be held sensibly without God that I am really interested in so far as concerns this argument.

...
Indeed if there is merely some "universal moral standard" floating out there somewhere in the realm of the abstract then I see no reason why I should be under any obligation to obey it. It can "ought" away all it likes for all I care. And if I ignore it, what crime am I think commiting? -Going against the wishes of a non-thinking entity? [sarcasm]Sure...[/sarcasm]

...
So perhaps this moral standard is instead the dictate of some unchanging being? But if this being has nothing to do with us and our world, or does nothing other than set this moral law, I have no more reason to obey its dictates than I do the dictates of Joe Bloggs down the road. Neither, it is generally agreed does Might alone make right. Only it seems, if it is to this being that we owe absolutely everything -that everything "we" have in life really belongs to this being and is only "ours" so long as this being gives us the usage of it- would we seem to have a complete obligation to obey the dictates of this being.</strong>
I'm glad you brought this up. Fear of annihilation is a rather reptilian moral standard, don't you think? For what is the implication here, that we owe this being something merely for the fact of our existence, or that we owe this being something for the fact that he can take away our existence if we fail to obey? If the former, I don't see how this differs from the "universal moral standard floating out there somewhere in the realm of the abstract" that you decided you had no reason to obey. You also decided that a god that merely set the moral standard and was otherwise uninvolved with human affairs was of no consequence and could be ignored.

I'm left with the conclusion then, that for you, there must be an ultimate threat involved in order to elicit moral behavior from you. This is rather frightening, and I am inclined to stop any further attempts at engaging you in any rational examination of these ideas, if it is only this vision of eternal annihilation that is all that is keeping you in line.

But isn't it interesting how, even though we rejected Nihilism at the outset, by following through with the logical implications of your argument, we have arrived at the same impossibile situation where no advancement in understanding can be obtained. For you, there is only obedience, or nothingness.
Autonemesis is offline  
Old 06-05-2002, 12:58 PM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
Post

Kind Bud,

Quote:
<strong>We would seem to have 3 possibilities for morality:
There is some moral standard universally applicable (Objectivism)
Moral standards differ validly from person to person and/or culture to culture (Relativism)
There are no moral standards (Nihilism)</strong>

False dichotomy, trichotomy, whatever.
My statement was false because there is a fourth option? And that fourth option would be.....?

Quote:
I'm glad you brought this up. Fear of annihilation is a rather reptilian moral standard, don't you think? For what is the implication here, that we owe this being something merely for the fact of our existence, or that we owe this being something for the fact that he can take away our existence if we fail to obey?
I was thinking of the former.

Quote:
If the former, I don't see how this differs from the "universal moral standard floating out there somewhere in the realm of the abstract" that you decided you had no reason to obey. You also decided that a god that merely set the moral standard and was otherwise uninvolved with human affairs was of no consequence and could be ignored.
An objection I had already considered myself...
And been unable to completely formulate a response that seems entirely satisfactory in my estimation, although I get the feeling I am almost there. So some random thoughts on the matter...
The floating universal standard I rejected was a standard with regard to how I ought to be behave in relation to other human beings to whom I had no inherent obligation. It seems to me that it is the level of the amount which we owe to the maker of the standard that makes the difference.
Does this simply boil down to the fact that I believe in a floating universal standard that reads "we have an obligation to those to which we owe something to the extent that we owe it"? Is that a tautology or not? If so, all is well and problem solved. If not, I get the feeling that I damn well should be able to express it as such, because that's the way it seems to be to me. Or does the problem lie in my belief that "it is good to fulfill obligations and bad not to"? Or is that a tautology also? Am I saying that "we ought to do that which we have an obligation to do"? -But doesn't the word "obligation" imply an "ought" in itself? -And hence is tautologous?
After writing the above, I'm inclined to think that my views are probably tautologous at a basic level and that I'm probably not doing any appealing to random universal standards that I rejected earlier... probably...
Or perhaps I'm equivicating with regard to the meaning of the word "owe" and sneaking something in there?

~sigh~ I think that I think too much!
Tercel
Tercel is offline  
Old 06-05-2002, 01:02 PM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
Post

NumberTenOx,

Quote:
<strong>Will we even leave as much as that behind?</strong>

Scary, isn't it? Welcome to the existential crisis. It's worth a wallow in that sentiment for awhile...
Thanks. Actually, it's nothing new to me and something I've considered for a number of years. My singular most major objection to being a Metaphysical Naturalist has always been that it has no way of even conceivably resolving the crisis. It just happens that I've only recently started using it as an argument on these boards...

Quote:
It's worth a wallow in that sentiment for awhile, then crawl out of the hole and go on. I do it all the time.
Which seems to me to be nothing but blatent self-deception. Basically, you are forced to live inconsistently with your beliefs. I think inconsistency is bad, so I solve the problem by the fairly simple expedient of changing my beliefs to remove the inconsistencies - which for me has meant assuming the falsity of Metaphysical Naturalism.

Quote:
But again, experiencing the pain and dispair of the lack of an eternal father figure, doesn't mean that he exists.
Of course it doesn't prove that he exists. But it makes it highly advantageous for us to assume that he does! I don't know about you, but I have a preference for doing things that are advantageous to me.
Tercel is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 01:10 AM   #44
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Thanks. Actually, it's nothing new to me and something I've considered for a number of years. My singular most major objection to being a Metaphysical Naturalist has always been that it has no way of even conceivably resolving the crisis.

That's too bad, Tercel. That's what other human beings are for. Have kids? They're a good antidote for those existential moments.

It just happens that I've only recently started using it as an argument on these boards...

It's not much of an argument, and it applies to any comforting supernatural concept.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 01:14 AM   #45
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Tercel:
<strong>Is torturing small children right or wrong? Is slavery right or wrong? Is forcing atheists on pain of death to declare belief in God right or wrong?
Laugh away...

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</strong>
These questions demonstrate the existence of objective morals how?

I ask because, if you have been following the news, the body of a young boy was pulled out of a river in England the other day, where he had been dumped. He had been apparently been ritually killed as part of a West African fertility ceremony still going on in England. Apparently some people have missed your "objective morals."

But those are easy questions. Torturing kids is wrong, slavery is wrong, and atheism is good. See? Let's have that demonstration of the existence of objective morals, now.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 01:31 AM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
These questions demonstrate the existence of objective morals how?

I ask because, if you have been following the news, the body of a young boy was pulled out of a river in England the other day, where he had been dumped. He had been apparently been ritually killed as part of a West African fertility ceremony still going on in England. Apparently some people have missed your "objective morals."
Whether everyone obeys these morals is irrelevant. In fact it is standard Christian doctrine that everyone disobeys them at at least some stage of their life.

Quote:
But those are easy questions. Torturing kids is wrong, slavery is wrong, and atheism is good. See? Let's have that demonstration of the existence of objective morals, now.
Is that simply your opinion on the matter, or are you stating some basic truths here?
I have a hypothetical friend who thinks torturing kids is okay, slavery is perfectly acceptable, and thinks athiests should be killed as painfully as possible. Is my friend's opinion just as valid as yours and is he entitled to his opinion every bit as much as you are? Or are you really right and he wrong?
Tercel is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 02:48 AM   #47
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Tercel:
<strong>I have a hypothetical friend who thinks torturing kids is okay, slavery is perfectly acceptable, and thinks athiests should be killed as painfully as possible. Is my friend's opinion just as valid as yours and is he entitled to his opinion every bit as much as you are? Or are you really right and he wrong?</strong>
Quit dodging the question. Demonstrate the existence of objective morals. That would include an objective definition of "objective," as well as examples of objective morals.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 05:17 AM   #48
HRG
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 2,406
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Tercel:
<strong>Is that simply your opinion on the matter, or are you stating some basic truths here?
I have a hypothetical friend who thinks torturing kids is okay, slavery is perfectly acceptable, and thinks athiests should be killed as painfully as possible. Is my friend's opinion just as valid as yours and is he entitled to his opinion every bit as much as you are? Or are you really right and he wrong?</strong>
I have a hypothetical friend who thinks that killing Egyptian firstborns is OK. In fact, that's exactly what he - hypothetically - did. Is my friend's opinion just as valid as yours and mine and is he entitled to his opinion every bit as much as you are ?

That he is - hypothetically - said to be omnipotent doesn't enter here at all. Might does not make right. Or does it ?

Morale: an objective moral system does not single out a specific being, whether it is supposedly eternal etc. or not.

Regards,
HRG.
HRG is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 05:33 AM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Thumbs down

Tercel, as always, you're not arguing objective morality, you're arguing for a meta judge that has the power to peer into a man's heart and punish them according to your sense of right and wrong.

Even if you could prove that a god exists, morality would still be subjective; it would be the subjective application of judgment by that god according to that god's decisions.

Your problem is that you have simply--blindly--declared that the word "god" means "nothing it does can be bad," therefore, a perfectly "good" Judge/Jury/Executioner mandates (to us) objective morality.

As you should be able to see, there are so many fallacies in that jumble of nonsense that it's almost impossible to begin laying them all out, so let's just start with the biggest one. Even if you could prove a god exists, the enforcement of what that god considers to be moral is still a subjective decision.

You aren't arguing for objective morality; you're arguing for supernatural punishment.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 06:03 AM   #50
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 284
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Tercel:
<strong>Of course it doesn't prove that he exists. But it makes it highly advantageous for us to assume that he does! I don't know about you, but I have a preference for doing things that are advantageous to me.</strong>
Tercel,

Thank you for your post. I think it shows at least one thing: that we are not very different. We are both dealing with the same crisis, just in different ways.

I have never understood Pascal's wager. Of course I do things that are advantageous for me, but I think that believing something because it is advantageous is, as you say, self deception.

I don't have an intellectual answer to the existential crisis (I have a practical one, as Vorkosigan said, interacting with other humans including my family). So, I do what I normally do in the face of the unknown, I think and search. When I find something I can intellectually accept, I'll run it by you...

Thanks.

Umm, I realized a couple of things in the shower.

First, I do have an answer to the existential thing; I believe that morality comes from evolution, both biological and social. What I don't have an answer for is the origin of the universe, similar but not the same question.

Second, I don't think you really believe in Pascal's wager. I think you really believe in God, and you use Pascal's wager as an argument back up that belief. I could be wrong and excuse my presumption.

Gotta go see a man about a horse....

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: NumberTenOx ]</p>
NumberTenOx is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:49 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.