Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
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
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
06-05-2002, 12:58 PM | #42 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
|
Kind Bud,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
|||
06-05-2002, 01:02 PM | #43 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
|
NumberTenOx,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
06-06-2002, 01:10 AM | #44 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
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. |
06-06-2002, 01:14 AM | #45 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Quote:
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 |
|
06-06-2002, 01:31 AM | #46 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
|
Quote:
Quote:
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? |
||
06-06-2002, 02:48 AM | #47 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Quote:
Vorkosigan |
|
06-06-2002, 05:17 AM | #48 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 2,406
|
Quote:
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. |
|
06-06-2002, 05:33 AM | #49 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
|
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. |
06-06-2002, 06:03 AM | #50 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 284
|
Quote:
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> |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|