A Civil Religious Discussion


Off-Topic Discussions

10,351 to 10,400 of 13,109 << first < prev | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | next > last >>

Sebastian wrote:
If there's an objective morality, but we can't perceive, measure, describe, or prove what it is/means, is that really any better than some other non-objective morality?

Only if you boringly insist on living in the real world. That's why philosophy is better than actually, you know, living.


AvalonXQ wrote:


It's that initial assumption that renders morality subjective. Because enough information about God can eventually include an "ought" fact, it's possible (although, as Kirth has correctly pointed out, not necessary) that a universe with a Creator can have an objective morality. It's not possible otherwise.

As rebuttal, I offer: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
AvalonXQ wrote:


That's not a bad place to start (although sophisticated systems of morality will usually have exceptions to this rule). But if you start from that rule, that's still your subjective assumption -- and there's no objective argument that refutes someone who chooses to question it.

I see where your argument is coming from now. Personally, I would modify the initial statement to 'A human being ought not perform an act against another human being that he would prefer to not have happen to himself.' Golden rule and all that.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:


It's that initial assumption that renders morality subjective. Because enough information about God can eventually include an "ought" fact, it's possible (although, as Kirth has correctly pointed out, not necessary) that a universe with a Creator can have an objective morality. It's not possible otherwise.
As rebuttal, I offer: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

Science can never create an "ought". It can only answer an assumed "ought" with an appropriate "is". Mr. Harris' talk doesn't contradict that; it simply assumes some commonly-assumed "oughts".


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I see where your argument is coming from now. Personally, I would modify the initial statement to 'A human being ought not perform an act against another human being that he would prefer to not have happen to himself.' Golden rule and all that.

Right. And if someone came along and said, "Why not?" -- there's really not a good answer. It's just an assumption.

An assumption that I subjectively like, I'll add. But nonetheless one without an objective basis.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

My answer would be 'he becomes a hypocrite.' I suppose you would point out that hypocrisy being bad is subjective. I don't agree, but I see what you mean now.


Sebastian wrote:
I'm confused. If morality is objective, why can't everyone agree about it?

There are objective facts that people are nonetheless in great disagreement on -- the most obvious one being the existence or nonexistence of God.

Something may be objectively true without being readily observable. It is possible to be in dispute over the truth of objective facts.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I suppose you would point out that hypocrisy being bad is subjective. I don't agree,

Why don't you agree? Mutualism is not the only valid survival strategy.

Deceit is a highly effective form of survival in the natural world; so is parasitism. The former relies on hypocrisy, and the latter on the Iron Rule (do to others what you can get away with).
Again, the basis for morality is always a set of subjective assumptions regarding what your goals or principles should be. Since those assumptions cannot be objectively verified to be the correct ones in the absence of factual teleology, morality remains subjective.


AvalonXQ wrote:


Science can never create an "ought". It can only answer an assumed "ought" with an appropriate "is". Mr. Harris' talk doesn't contradict that; it simply assumes some commonly-assumed "oughts".

If you're going with the idea that morality by definition is a collection of oughts, then we may have to just agree to disagree.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
If you're going with the idea that morality by definition is a collection of oughts, then we may have to just agree to disagree.

It's the only definition I've ever seen anyone serious in philosophy or metaphysics ever give. If you have another one, please provide it.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

AvalonXQ wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
I'm confused. If morality is objective, why can't everyone agree about it?

There are objective facts that people are nonetheless in great disagreement on -- the most obvious one being the existence or nonexistence of God.

Something may be objectively true without being readily observable. It is possible to be in dispute over the truth of objective facts.

So we should follow an objective moral code, that we can't agree upon, can't determine objectively, and can't measure?

Why is this better than a subjective morality? Or flipping a coin?


Sebastian wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
I'm confused. If morality is objective, why can't everyone agree about it?

There are objective facts that people are nonetheless in great disagreement on -- the most obvious one being the existence or nonexistence of God.

Something may be objectively true without being readily observable. It is possible to be in dispute over the truth of objective facts.

So we should follow an objective moral code, that we can't agree upon, can't determine objectively, and can't measure?

Why is this better than a subjective morality? Or flipping a coin?

"Better" in what sense? How do we decide what is optimal?

... see how we get back to subjectivity again?

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

AvalonXQ wrote:


"Better" in what sense? How do we decide what is optimal?
... see how we get back to subjectivity again?

When did we leave it? You have yet to offer a meaningful objective standard to use. You claim one exists, but can't explain what it is or what makes it objective.


Sebastian wrote:
You have yet to offer a meaningful objective standard to use. You claim one exists, but can't explain what it is or what makes it objective.

I never claimed one exists, and I certainly didn't claim to be able to provide sufficient proof to convincingly establish the specifics of what it is.

I claimed that the only basis for one would be a creator God -- that in the absence of a creator God, we cannot have one, while a creator God (with some other objective facts) makes one possible. That's as far as I went.


I think this is a valid addition to the conversation.


AvalonXQ wrote:
(1) Deceit is a highly effective form of survival in the natural world; (2) so is parasitism.

1. When applied to would-be predators (e.g., the coral snake), deceit can work. Among one's own species, it can be "highly effective" in the short term, but in the long run it observably always yields a lower-sum outcome.

2. Parasitism on other species is effective. Parasitism on one's own is not.

If you're going to try and state scientific facts, it helps to state them in such a manner that they apply to the subject at hand, rather than use them as a smokescreen to obfuscate matters.


Ironically, I've already refuted nihilism more than once here. Hume was not a nihilist, and all I've been doing is explaining Hume's famous is-ought disconnect. There's nothing unique or even reductionist in my explanations here.
But claiming morality must be subjective, because it successfully links to no objective facts, is not the same as claiming there are no objective facts.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
(1) Deceit is a highly effective form of survival in the natural world; (2) so is parasitism.

1. When applied to would-be predators (e.g., the coral snake), deceit can work. Among one's own species, it can be "highly effective" in the short term, but in the long run is always yields a lower-sum outcome.

2. Parasitism on other species is effective. Parasitism on one's own is not.

I was going to say something but you beat me to it. Both of those can be effective individual survival strategies but horrible species survival strategies.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
1. When applied to would-be predators (e.g., the coral snake), deceit can work. Among one's own species, it can be "highly effective" in the short term, but in the long run is always yields a lower-sum outcome.

I disagree. Deceit is a normal part of many mating rituals of many species.

Quote:
2. Parasitism on other species is effective. Parasitism on one's own is not.

Both colony and pack species involve a "slave/master" relationship which, while technically not "parasitism", is the behavior I was referring to.


ArchLich wrote:
I was going to say something but you beat me to it. Both of those can be effective individual survival strategies but horrible species survival strategies.

Rather, in the context of one's own species (which is generally how we consider morality, although it doesn't need to be, I suppose), they're poor individual strategies. In the context of applying them against competing species, they can work as a group strategy.


ArchLich wrote:
I was going to say something but you beat me to it. Both of those can be effective individual survival strategies but horrible species survival strategies.

I disagree that this is factually true, but even assuming it is factually true -- when an individual is subjectively choosing a morality, an individual survival strategy is just as good of a basis as any other.

He has chosen the basic moral principle of: "I ought to maximize my own survival". And that's as valid a principle as any other, because it's all subjective.


AvalonXQ wrote:
Deceit is a normal part of many mating rituals of many species.

That doesn't make it the best possible strategy -- only a better one than the alternatives provided by mutation and behavior within that species.

AvalonXQ wrote:
Both [some] colony and [some] pack species involve a "slave/master" relationship which, while technically not "parasitism", is the behavior I was referring to.

Slave-like behavior seems to work in lions, for example, in which a harem of females will make kills for a male in return for mating rights -- but since there's a quid-pro-quo, the male is more like a symbiont than a parasite.

That sort of behavior, however, observably doesn't work well at all in more social species like penguins or chimps. Or humans, for that matter.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
ArchLich wrote:
I was going to say something but you beat me to it. Both of those can be effective individual survival strategies but horrible species survival strategies.
Rather, in the context of one's own species (which is generally how we consider morality, although it doesn't need to be, I suppose), they're poor individual strategies. In the context of applying them against competing species, they can work as a group strategy.

Correct that is what I meant to say but I forgot to state it fully. Thank you for the appropriate clarification.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

AvalonXQ wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
You have yet to offer a meaningful objective standard to use. You claim one exists, but can't explain what it is or what makes it objective.

I never claimed one exists, and I certainly didn't claim to be able to provide sufficient proof to convincingly establish the specifics of what it is.

I claimed that the only basis for one would be a creator God -- that in the absence of a creator God, we cannot have one, while a creator God (with some other objective facts) makes one possible. That's as far as I went.

What about a super intelligent computer (powered by rainbow magic!)? I bet it could provide objective morality. I assert that it could, so I don't really have to provide any details of that objective morality, or how to learn it, or how to even get in touch with the super intelligent computer (powered by rainbow magic!).

That's how this game is played, right?


Sebastian wrote:
What about a super intelligent computer (powered by rainbow magic!)? I bet it could provide objective morality.

Only if the superintelligent computer (powered by rainbow magic!) also created us, or can otherwise bridge the is-ought gap. Since I doubt the superintelligent computer (powered by rainbow magic!) as proposed has anything to do with teleology, and I don't see you proposing an additional mechanism for bridging the gap, I'm going to say no.

But I do like the concept of a superintelligent computer (powered by rainbow magic!). :-)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Slave-like behavior seems to work in lions.. Or humans, for that matter.

All slaves do is work, so saying they dont work well is kinda funny :D

Plus they brought us the Pyramids so obviously slavery is the way to go.


To clarify, I'm talking about the "drone" or "uncle" concept -- the notion of working members of a species who don't themselves get to pass on their DNA.
But anyway, it's irrelevant to the central point. Because our initial "ought" is inherently subjective, it doesn't even HAVE to be a viable strategy to form a moral framework just as consistent as any other.


AvalonXQ wrote:


I claimed that the only basis for one would be a creator God -- that in the absence of a creator God, we cannot have one, while a creator God (with some other objective facts) makes one possible.

Yet we have no reason to believe this is actually the case. Why would a creator God make morality objective? You complain about other people smuggling subjectivity into their morality, but you just want to hide it under God's beard. This is a rather poor strategy if you're trying to defend God-centric moralities as being non-subjective.


AvalonXQ wrote:
But anyway, it's irrelevant to the central point. Because our initial "ought" is inherently subjective, it doesn't even HAVE to be a viable strategy to form a moral framework just as consistent as any other.

Then the central point is itself irrelevant. If your hypothetical "ought" destroys the species it applies to, then it is self-defeating. Therefore, species survival is a necessary component of a continuing "ought" that is more than a lame one-shot excuse to extinguish this hypothetical Creator's own creation. That being said, if species survival is an objective requirement, then strategies better suited to that survival are objectively "good," in the sense of being prerequisites for a continuing "ought."


xiN wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Slave-like behavior seems to work in lions.. Or humans, for that matter.

All slaves do is work, so saying they dont work well is kinda funny :D

Plus they brought us the Pyramids so obviously slavery is the way to go.

I thought that was one theory (an older less supported theory now). I had heard that they were actually make work projects so that the pharaoh could pay farmers in the off season because he didn't trust them not to sell/eat all their rations from the fields.


Samnell wrote:
Yet we have no reason to believe this is actually the case. Why would a creator God make morality objective?

Because a created universe can have an actual purpose, and entities in that universe can likewise have actual objective purposes that they are designed to fulfill.

So, the fact of a creator God can imply the fact of an objective goal for a creature. Therefore, acts that fulfill that objective goal are acts that we objectively "should" do.
And, yes -- the teleology itself is where the "ought" assumption lies. Essentially, by having an objective goal for the universe and the entities in it, we can objectively evaluate actions and principles according to their compatability with that goal.
That's why I specify a creator God -- it's that special status as designing a creature to fulfill a purpose that allows this to work at all.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
If your hypothetical "ought" destroys the species it applies to, then it is self-defeating.

It's only self-defeating if the species "ought" to survive. And why is that? What makes extinction morally wrong?


AvalonXQ wrote:
It's only self-defeating if the species "ought" to survive. And why is that? What makes extinction morally wrong?

Read the rest of the post. Your "ought" presupposes a Creator with a goal, by your own admission. If his goal is the extinction of the species, He could simply not create them in the first place. On the other hand, if this species plays an important (or even integral) part in this goal, they cease to play a part if they go prematurely extinct. Hence, strategies antithetical to their survival are antithetical to this goal as well. QED.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Your "ought" presupposes a Creator with a goal, by your own admission.

Don't mix up parts of the argument, here. This whole train of argument came from the idea that morality is inherenty subjective without a creator. It started when someone brought up the golden rule as a moral principle, and I responded that even that could be refuted just as easily as accepted, since the principle is assumed and subjective.


In other words, you just came to an objective basis for rejecting certain moral principles only by assuming a Creator. No Creator, no objective morality. QED indeed.


AvalonXQ wrote:
Don't mix up parts of the argument, here.

If the parts of your overarching argument don't fit together, then the argument itself is flawed.


AvalonXQ wrote:
In other words, you just came to an objective basis for rejecting certain moral principles only by assuming a Creator. No Creator, no objective morality. QED indeed.

Not necessarily. Demonstrating ONE pathway of how a Creator supports survival as an objective morality in no way "proves" there are no other possible pathways that don't involve one.

If you claim a satisfying lunch is only possible by eating a peach, and I examine peach eating as an alternative, that doesn't in any way automatically eliminate a sandwich.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Don't mix up parts of the argument, here.
If the parts of your overarching argument don't fit together, then the argument itself is flawed.

Fortunately in this case the two parts of the argument fit together perfectly.

But when I'm saying A --> x and (not A) --> (not x), then I assume (not A) to show an example of (not x), and you come back at me by showing x because A, that's not showing inconsistency -- that's trying to confuse an argument that's been going on several different threads.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
. Demonstrating ONE pathway of how a Creator supports survival as an objective morality in no way "proves" there are no other possible pathways that don't involve one.

I agree. But when I was obviously demonstrating how morality was subjective WITHOUT GOD, and you then ADD IN GOD to refute me, I feel that you're really just taking advantage of the parallel nature of this thread rather than trying to respond honestly to my explanations.


AvalonXQ wrote:
But when I'm saying A --> x and (not A) --> (not x), then I assume (not A) to show an example of (not x), and you come back at me by showing x because A, that's not showing inconsistency -- that's trying to confuse an argument that's been going on several different threads.

Okay, if you like symbolic logic symbols,

If A can be shown to fulfill B, that does not prove that A is a necessary condition for B, only that it's a sufficient one.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
If A can be shown to fulfill B, that does not prove that A is a necessary condition for B, only that it's a sufficient one.

I'm aware of that. The is-ought gap is a well-understood philosophical principle. Are you refuting it?


AvalonXQ wrote:
I agree. But when I was obviously demonstrating how morality was subjective WITHOUT GOD, and you then ADD IN GOD to refute me, I feel that you're really just taking advantage of the parallel nature of this thread rather than trying to respond honestly to my explanations.

Not at all. There are two possibilities:

(1) A Creator with a plan; and (2) not. You raised the possibility that condition (1) means that survival is not needed; I countered that point.

Instead of A alone being essential components of B,
I've shown that A and C are necessary components.

We can now go on and see if either A or C can be sufficient.


AvalonXQ wrote:
The is-ought gap is a well-understood philosophical principle. Are you refuting it?

I'm entertaining the possibility that it's either (a) false, or (b) fails to apply in the way you're claiming.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
(1) A Creator with a plan; and (2) not. You raised the possibility that condition (1) means that survival is not needed;

I never said that. You got confused.


At this point, I think I've spelled out my meaning pretty well.
If you have a counterargument -- namely, an objective basis for morality other than an assumed "ought" -- please present it.


AvalonXQ wrote:
At this point, I think I've spelled out my meaning pretty well.

Indeed -- you've spelled out pretty clearly that you'll accept nothing but a Creator, so anything else -- even if shown to be equally necessary -- will be rejected.

What I've tried to show is that for ANY moral principles to apply -- subjective or objective -- species survival is a prerequisite. Survival itself is therefore sufficient to found an objective system on, whether there's another underying "ought" or not.


AvalonXQ wrote:
Samnell wrote:
Yet we have no reason to believe this is actually the case. Why would a creator God make morality objective?
Because a created universe can have an actual purpose, and entities in that universe can likewise have actual objective purposes that they are designed to fulfill.

Why should we wish to follow a creator god's plan instead of our own? I could agree with you that the universe was created with aforethought and still think of many reasons I'm entirely disinterested in compliance with that plan. There's no obvious reason that the purpose of the universe must be the purpose I adopt for myself.

AvalonXQ wrote:


And, yes -- the teleology itself is where the "ought" assumption lies. Essentially, by having an objective goal for the universe and the entities in it, we can objectively evaluate actions and principles according to their compatability with that goal.
That's why I specify a creator God -- it's that special status as designing a creature to fulfill a purpose that allows this to work at all.

You're not really helping yourself. You've still got subjectivity in there, from top to bottom. It's in your creator god's head and in your own when you decide that you want to follow his plan.

Liberty's Edge

So, AvalonXQ, do you believe that morality as it currently exists is subjective or objective?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
At this point, I think I've spelled out my meaning pretty well.
Indeed -- you've spelled out pretty clearly that you'll accept nothing but a Creator, so anything else -- even if shown to be equally necessary -- will be rejected.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Cheers.

Liberty's Edge

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Avalon, I find it insulting and disingenuous of you to try to charactarize atheists as amoral.

One thing to consider when making this attack is the underrepresentation of atheists and the overrepresentation of christians in the US prison system. IIRC, while atheists make up upwards of 10% of the US population at large, they only make up 1% of prisoners. Christians, OTOH, make up around 70% of the population at large and 90% of the prisoners. Your (the christian your, not you specifically) moral superiority astounds me!

If you seriously think any of that "90%" is serious, I have pity for you. Most guys who list a religion list whatever they grew up as. They think about God about as much as I think about piloting a baboon in a Cannonball Run. They think less about God than most atheists I know. Being raised something doesn't make you any more Baptist or Catholic or whatever than being raised whatever and deciding to be an atheist does.

And, as an insider, 99% of that 90% "found God" in prison. Then, about half of them left Jesus in R&D when they left. You'd be amazed what perks you get for joining a religious group in prison. If you go "full God-boy" in the joint and hang out with the other "serious" converts, most gangs put you on the "no rape/no beatdown" list. Maybe the gangs are just hedging their bets in case there is a god. I don't know though, I never asked them their reasoning.

Did you know that a lot of people in prison claim to be Jewish as well, so they can get on the "restricted diet" log?

I could sit here and list a ton of irrelevant facts about prison life that have zero relevance in whatever argument you're trying to male.

10,351 to 10,400 of 13,109 << first < prev | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / A Civil Religious Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.