Chip

Is the concept of metaphysical naturalism an ideology that is opposed to finding meaning or value in universe?

How about "moral relativism?" Does this mean there is no such thing as a universally consistent morality?

Seems to me that they can and do imply no worth to anything anywhere for some. People who consider themselves as thinking representatives of life may come to the conclusion that they shouldn't negate or deny the value of their own foundation. But then there are those who are quite out of touch with their nature, the justification for intellectual suicide and psychological murder.

Any thoughts on this? Is such consideration being an infidel to the church of metaphysical naturalism?

Skepticos

Chip writes:

"Is the concept of metaphysical naturalism an ideology that is opposed to finding meaning or value in universe?"

Are you referring to some type of objective value or meaning? Such as an answer to the question of why we exist, what is our life purpose and worth, or why there is something rather than nothing?

It is clear that there is subjective value and meaning, and even inter-subjective value and meaning, but I am not sure that it would make sense to the naturalist to speak of some type of objective value or meaning. Or are you talking about something else?

"How about 'moral relativism?' Does this mean there is no such thing as a universally consistent morality?"

What is a universally consistent morality? One that applies to all individuals, at any given moment in time? One that all properly-functioning persons will assent to? I don't think any such theory has ever existed. Morality is subjective, even inter-subjective; I see no basis for an objective morality.

- Skepticos

galiel

CHip, why are you determined to prove that everything is dogma?

Chip

Skepticos: “Are you referring to some type of objective value or meaning? Such as an answer to the question of why we exist, what is our life purpose and worth, or why there is something rather than nothing?”

Sure and more as implied by the antithesis I attributed to “metaphysical naturalism” and “moral relativism” when I stated “they can and do imply no worth to anything anywhere for some.”

Skepticos: “It is clear that there is subjective value and meaning, and even inter-subjective value and meaning, but I am not sure that it would make sense to the naturalist to speak of some type of objective value or meaning. Or are you talking about something else?”

Who can truly hold an “objective value or meaning?” That would be dishonest, signifying delusion as all that any person can begin to know is their own interpretation of anything anywhere, their subjective slant to things. It would be dysfunctional to find that objective reality had value or non-value, either a moral or immoral significance. It does happen, for example, a participant here on this forum recently shared “everyone knows that life is shit” and some others, long time and many postings to their participation here, chimed right in with agreement.

Skepticos: “What is a universally consistent morality? One that applies to all individuals, at any given moment in time? One that all properly-functioning persons will assent to?

Yup, universal. Do non “properly-functioning persons” exist? Well, we sure seem opposed to some behaviors of others and ourselves as we collectively and individually attempt to further our own lives without inordinate compromise of our options. If we have to defend the idea that morality has no reducible basis at all, then why seek to curtail the random serial murders of a sniper or refuse to join in or condone such behavior?

Skepticos: “Morality is subjective, even inter-subjective; I see no basis for an objective morality.”

Me neither.

Edited to add a line break.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Chip ]</p>

Chip

Galiel: "CHip, why are you determined to prove that everything is dogma?"

Galiel, those words are ad hominem and straw man all rolled into one. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? But then, maybe the analogy doesn't really apply, because, who knows, maybe you do or have beaten your wife.

Why are you so determined to demonstrate your distaste for reason or rational discourse?

Poor little guy, an infidel challenges your faith.

Edited to supplement the last line.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Chip ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Is the concept of metaphysical naturalism an ideology that is opposed to finding meaning or value in universe?

MN simply says that there are no supernatural entities or processes. It says nothing about the meaning of the universe.

How about "moral relativism?" Does this mean there is no such thing as a universally consistent morality?

Define "universally consistent." Only for H. sapiens? All sentient beings? All times and places? What do you mean?

But then there are those who are quite out of touch with their nature, the justification for intellectual suicide and psychological murder.

You're a bit rambling here. What do you mean?

Any thoughts on this? Is such consideration being an infidel to the church of metaphysical naturalism?

There is no church of metaphysical naturalism. MN is an outgrowth of methodological naturalism, a powerful assumption used in scholarship and the sciences.

Vorkosigan

Chip

Ah, Vorkosigan, sometimes it can be quite relieving to see someone attempt some real communication.

Vorkosigan: “It says nothing about the meaning of the universe.”

Yes. Has me wondering if MN has any utility.

Vorkosigan: “Define "universally consistent." Only for H. sapiens? All sentient beings? All times and places? What do you mean?

Everything and anything. Being a human being does cause my subjective desires to place dislikes and desires as motivation for my actions. Might the fact that so far, to all extent and purposes, discussions take place between human beings, that there are shared desires and dislikes? For sure, it does. Numerous examples present themselves. Would it be a good thing to take your next breath? I suspect you are going to do it. Me too. It is a desire we share, a judgement of what would be good and acceptable. We don’t want to die and we do things all the time in pursuit of such value delineating desire. Of course some do commit suicide but it isn’t something we consider as a good thing, is it? I know that one might argue that suicide to end suffering might be acceptable but then if we are to accept that then we find we have the justification that suffering is bad, another moral judgment. Suicide implies that something is wrong or bad somewhere universally. If we have to strip any moral judgment about suicide or anything else for that matter, then why breathe? How does “Everything and anything” equate to what is good for humans? Do we have any non humans around that would like to address this question? Well, if we did, would they claim that suicide is something they value too? I don’t think they’d survive long enough to have that moral judgment if they tried. In light of the above “All times and places” can be weighed as to their supporting or negating our common desires and wants which implies that everything might just be juxtapositional as to good or bad, valuable or inconsequential, depending on context. “Universally consistent morality” then means just what it says. One can argue that things out of context can appear as good at one time and bad at another but if we take the logical position that things can only be understood and judged in context, there is no contradiction to the concept of universally consistent morality.

Chip: “But then there are those who are quite out of touch with their nature, the justification for intellectual suicide and psychological murder.”

Vordosigan: “You're a bit rambling here. What do you mean?”

Yes. I thought so too after posting but decided to let it stand and address it only if someone asked. Because we have a common nature there are things and processes that we judge similarly as to worth. But if a person is out of touch with their nature, alienated from the fact of their being human and sharing similar needs with others, then they might find that another’s life and right to existence was bad while their own was worthy of killing others for or that their suicide would mean nothing to any one else, even if all of their reasoning was faulty. If they are out of touch with the idea that what is good for me is good for you, then they would not ascribe to any universal morality or, one could argue, any kind of compulsion to attempt to be moral. I don’t think such a person is what one would want to meet in a dark alley. I could strip the words “intellectual” and “psychological” from the statement in question and still have the same intent implicit.

Vorkosigan: “There is no church of metaphysical naturalism. MN is an outgrowth of methodological naturalism, a powerful assumption used in scholarship and the sciences.

AND used by an institution as a statement of purpose, an ideology or concept, that the social entity (maybe asocial would be more descriptive as “church” connotes to many who profess atheism) that it exists to defend. Sure, Christianity is not a church but there are churches that are of the classification, Christian. Certainly Internet Infidels is a thing that claims a purpose to support MN. It pays and expends efforts to sustain a specific place for the practice of a specific worship, the correctness and validity of MN. Fellow II members would unequivocally agree with you in alluding to the righteousness and power of MN. Certainly the members of a church would do no different in the superlative importance they place on their own beliefs.

Chip

Scotsmanmatt

Matt
I'd be interested in having the following article by Alvin Plantinga critiqued by board [or bored] members. Is it a sound defeater of philosophical naturalism? If not, why not?

<a href="http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/alspaper.htm" target="_blank">http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/alspaper.htm</a>

Thanks
Matt

Bill Snedden

Actually, that paper has already been discussed <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000001" target="_blank">in this forum</a>.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Theli

Chip...

Yes, keep going.

For morality, proper conduct or "right" to be obective it cannot be disagreeable nor can it differ from person to person. Furthermore, you have limited this question to humans (living in this time) only. The fact that these opinions (even shared ones) changes over time and is also tied to our genetic makeup (the need to breathe, need to eat, need to sleep) makes them properties of humans, and not of the universe (universal).

Let's shorten this text abit, hope you don't mind.
X = Me taking my next breath.
Y = You taking your next breath.
X for me is very good, it hold great importance. I desire to live, and X is a condition to do that.
However, Y is not as valuable for me as X (nothing personal ). And I'm pretty sure that you value Y much more than X, now doesn't this make both X and Y subjective?
If you refer to claim that breathing is requirement to live, then this is a logical question.

Not everyone wants to breathe, not that it really matter but just FYI.

I don't know what "version" of morality you are using, but for me things that only concerns and affects the individual making the choice isn't a question of morality, and shouldn't be ruled by any moral law.

I might have missunderstood this question, if so I apologize, but are you suggesting that the meaning (or value) for an individual to live is based on moral law? That without morality you don't want to live?

[quote]How does "Everything and anything" equate to what is good for humans?

I would say we apply value to things ourselfs, as a part of our way of percieving the outside world. An apple tree is often more valuable to a human than a pinetree, as it has eatable fruit. Unless it's christmas ;-)

If they had any sense of selfpreservation, yes. If they had something similar to our social needs, then Y would be valuable also.

Now you are arguing a "universally morality for us", out of the lack of a second, nonhuman opinion. Wich is a paradox.
As our morality is tied to our genetic makeup, wouldn't you find it probable that a posible alien race would have morality tied to theirs?


Interesting topic, nontheless. I hope you reply.