A Civil Religious Discussion


Off-Topic Discussions

10,451 to 10,500 of 13,109 << first < prev | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | next > last >>

houstonderek wrote:
Yep. The important point to understand is the basis of the argument/discussion that Avalon put forth was the philosophy of David Hume, who endeavored to try to understand human nature and morality using the same principles Newton used to understand the physical universe. Hume wanted to apply the principles of Newtonian physics to human behavior.

Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with David Hume and I doubt Wikipedia would do him justice for the sake of this thread. It seems to me Newtonian physics are not terribly applicable to human nature. This may be due to my lack of knowledge in either fields.

houstonderek wrote:
The main point being, you can't just say something is objective, you have to demonstrably prove something is objective, just like you would with a scientific hypothesis.

I can certainly get behind that.

houstonderek wrote:
But then, you start spinning off into Spinoza territory as to whether or not you can objectively prove the existence of a creator god.

This is where I keep getting confused. Why are we adding god?

houstonderek wrote:
The only "only" is that there can only be one source for an "objective" morality.

As long as Objective Morality (OM) = fulfilling purpose. I am not convinced of that, but I am willing to accept it for the sake of this debate.

The first thing that springs to my mind, and is something I kind of aimed at earlier, is, what if our 'purpose' is simply to exist? Then anything we do to exist is moral. I am not sure I can go along with that. Granted, that is not proof of anything.

Worse still, what if our 'purpose' is to experience suffering?

Another point, this 'objectivity' only goes back so far as the 'final cause'. If the purpose of my poem is to make someone smile, then it is moral if my poem makes someone smile. If my purpose is not to make people smile, then I am immoral, while my poem remains moral. Huh?

Conceptualizing a creator god as an end point only works if we are allowed to create an end point. And if we are allowed to create one, why should we arbitrarily end at a creator god? Why not end at me? So my poem can be moral. Why not go beyond the creator god? What was his purpose?

To me it just seems like we are afraid of infinite recursion, so we just arbitrarily select a stopping point.


Sigh.

Obviously my argument was poorly presented, since not one person seems to have grasped it, and are instead accusing me of side-tracking things. Let me try again to make it as clear as possible, in a single post.

Premise: Humanity must exist for morality of any kind (subjective or objective) to apply to it. No humanity, no human morality. This is true even in the absence of a Creator. (As I showed above, it is ALSO true in the case of a Creator using mankind as part of his moral plans, but that's beside the point I'm getting to.)

Correlary: Since existence is objectively necessary for morality, conditions favoring continued existence are objectively useful in maintaining morality. Conditions or strategies that interfere with it are objectively deletorious. This holds true regardless of whether a separate moral scheme exists.

Conclusion: A moral system in which strategies favoring the continued existence of the species are considered "moral" has an objective basis, following from the premise and correlary. Such a system may miss parts, if a separate Creator exists, but is no less onjective for that. In the absence of a Creator, such a system remains an objective morality.

Now, Derek and Avalon, if either or both of you can address the argument, I'd be fine. Avalon, if you have a problem with the logic laid out here, state it, rather than simply continuing to implicitly insist on a Creator as a necessary basis without any logical reason why the system outlined does not meet the standards of the challenge. Derek, until you have an idea what I'm talking about, your immediate assumption that an anti-religious bias somehow prevents my brain from functioning is premature, likely incorrect, and definitely insulting.

Liberty's Edge

CourtFool wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Yep. The important point to understand is the basis of the argument/discussion that Avalon put forth was the philosophy of David Hume, who endeavored to try to understand human nature and morality using the same principles Newton used to understand the physical universe. Hume wanted to apply the principles of Newtonian physics to human behavior.

Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with David Hume and I doubt Wikipedia would do him justice for the sake of this thread. It seems to me Newtonian physics are not terribly applicable to human nature. This may be due to my lack of knowledge in either fields.

houstonderek wrote:
The main point being, you can't just say something is objective, you have to demonstrably prove something is objective, just like you would with a scientific hypothesis.

I can certainly get behind that.

houstonderek wrote:
But then, you start spinning off into Spinoza territory as to whether or not you can objectively prove the existence of a creator god.

This is where I keep getting confused. Why are we adding god?

houstonderek wrote:
The only "only" is that there can only be one source for an "objective" morality.

As long as Objective Morality (OM) = fulfilling purpose. I am not convinced of that, but I am willing to accept it for the sake of this debate.

The first thing that springs to my mind, and is something I kind of aimed at earlier, is, what if our 'purpose' is simply to exist? Then anything we do to exist is moral. I am not sure I can go along with that. Granted, that is not proof of anything.

Worse still, what if our 'purpose' is to experience suffering?

Another point, this 'objectivity' only goes back so far as the 'final cause'. If the purpose of my poem is to make someone smile, then it is moral if my poem makes someone smile. If my purpose is not to make people smile, then I am immoral, while my poem remains moral. Huh?

Conceptualizing a creator god as an end point only works if we are...

I think what humans are afraid of is that our existence really doesn't mean anything. The logical conclusion of atheism is that really life has no true meaning. We invent social constructs to make life livable, but, objectively, in the absence of an afterlife or a creator god, what we do here ultimately doesn't mean a thing, objectively. I'm nihilistic enough to not really care if life has meaning, frankly, so this doesn't bother me at all.

But some people need something to hang their hats on to make themselves feel better about their existence, whether it be religion or secular humanism (really the same thing, just with different rhetoric and conclusions about where the authority to impose morals comes from), and that doesn't bother me at all either. Well, until it interferes with my ability to live as I see fit. Whether it be Catholics, Fascists, Marxists, Islamists, Secular Humanists, whatever, I reject their "moral authority" to impose their beliefs on me.

I tend to play nice in society because a) prison sucks (trust me), and b) I can no longer see the benefit in rocking the boat too vigorously. Not because I necessarily agree with a lot of the conclusions of the people who made the rules we live by.


PlungingForward wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
(Avalon's) entire argument seemed to rest on the assumption of a god.

You've misunderstood. Avalon was attempting to prove that you can't have an objective morality without a Creator God - not that a creator god (or objective morality) exists, or even that a Creator mandates the existence of objective morality.

(I lurk on this thread a lot, so thanks all for a good thread.)

The depressing thing is this would have been an interesting debate to read. A lot better then what seems to be a concerted attempt to 'win' debates by driving the other poster off.


Houstonderek wrote:
I tend to play nice in society because a) prison sucks (trust me), and b) I can no longer see the benefit in rocking the boat too vigorously. Not because I necessarily agree with a lot of the conclusions of the people who made the rules we live by.

Well, yeah, society is a social contract -- laws are not morals, though, they're arbitrary conditions chosen for people to gain benefits and/or avoid punishments.


Kirth, if I may be so presumptuous to say, for the sake of continued debate, that you be the first to put the young girl down.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
The depressing thing is this would have been an interesting debate to read. A lot better then what seems to be a concerted attempt to 'win' debates by driving the other poster off.

If you're accusing me of that, you also missed the entire thrust of my argument, despite my spelling it out again today. Failing to address a person's argument isn't cause for immediate martyrdom.


CourtFool wrote:
Kirth, if I may be so presumptuous to say, for the sake of continued debate, that you be the first to put the young girl down.

Yes, if no one is willing to address the argument I actually made, and is instead anxious to assert that I'm posting insults at random out of some form of deep-seated insanity, then I do indeed need to quit.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


That's just it. As long as it is a human being deciding what "objective morality" is, another human is going to disagree with that.

Why can't morality be something that exists objectively independent of humans, with humans struggling to perceive and understand it, and sometimes getting it wrong? Over time humans' understanding of what is or isn't moral evolves, with better or more exact approximations of the true, objective morality replacing more flawed approximations -- but all the while, it isn't the truth of morality that's been changing, only humans understanding of it.

In other words, just like humans' understanding of physics.

Presumably this pretty much is what philosophy tries to do,

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Sigh.

Obviously my argument was poorly presented, since not one person seems to have grasped it, and are instead accusing me of side-tracking things. Let me try again to make it as clear as possible, in a single post.

Premise: Humanity must exist for morality of any kind (subjective or objective) to apply to it. No humanity, no human morality. This is true even in the absence of a Creator. (As I showed above, it is ALSO true in the case of a Creator using mankind as part of his moral plans, but that's beside the point I'm getting to.)

Correlary: Since existence is objectively necessary for morality, conditions favoring continued existence are objectively useful in maintaining morality. Conditions or strategies that interfere with it are objectively deletorious. This holds true regardless of whether a separate moral scheme exists.

Conclusion: A moral system in which strategies favoring the continued existence of the species are considered "moral" has an objective basis, following from the premise and correlary. Such a system may miss parts, if a separate Creator exists, but is no less onjective for that. In the absence of a Creator, such a system remains an objective morality.

Now, Derek and Avalon, if either or both of you can address the argument, I'd be fine. Avalon, if you have a problem with the logic laid out here, state it, rather than simply continuing to implicitly insist on a Creator as a necessary basis without any logical reason why the system outlined does not meet the standards of the challenge. Derek, until you have an idea what I'm talking about, your immediate assumption that an anti-religious bias somehow prevents my brain from functioning is premature, likely incorrect, and definitely insulting.

I was having trouble following the first time around, but now that you've formated like this, i'm pickin up what you're puttin down. Seems a solid and objective rationalization to me.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Sigh.

Obviously my argument was poorly presented, since not one person seems to have grasped it, and are instead accusing me of side-tracking things. Let me try again to make it as clear as possible, in a single post.

Premise: Humanity must exist for morality of any kind (subjective or objective) to apply to it. No humanity, no human morality. This is true even in the absence of a Creator. (As I showed above, it is ALSO true in the case of a Creator using mankind as part of his moral plans, but that's beside the point I'm getting to.)

Correlary: Since existence is objectively necessary for morality, conditions favoring continued existence are objectively useful in maintaining morality. Conditions or strategies that interfere with it are objectively deletorious. This holds true regardless of whether a separate moral scheme exists.

Conclusion: A moral system in which strategies favoring the continued existence of the species are considered "moral" has an objective basis, following from the premise and correlary. Such a system may miss parts, if a separate Creator exists, but is no less onjective for that. In the absence of a Creator, such a system remains an objective morality.

Now, Derek and Avalon, if either or both of you can address the argument, I'd be fine. Avalon, if you have a problem with the logic laid out here, state it, rather than simply continuing to insist on a Creator as a necessary basis without any logical reason why the system outlined does not meet the standards of the challenge. Derek, until you have an idea what I'm talking about, your immediate assumption that an anti-religious bias somehow prevents my brain from functioning is premature, likely incorrect, and definitely insulting.

Here's the problem: Avalon never said a creator was necessary for morality. Not once. Just that, in the absence of a creator, absolute morality would be more difficult to prove. Hence the allowance for teleology as a basis for "objective" morality.

Secondly, what constitutes "necessary for the survival of the species" is wildly subjective, outside of food, shelter and reproduction for the human species. If you're discussing "existing at the level we enjoy now", well, that is still subjective. I can state that "we should (the is/ought argument) avoid total nuclear exchange to ensure the survival of the species" and probably be able to come up with several objective reasons why that is the truth, but I can also come up with a bunch of subjective reasons why bloodying someone's nose can have positive survival benefits (to counter an earlier example of yours).

Kirth, considering that you consistently used a point Avalon most definitely did not asset as the basis of much of your argument (Avalon never stated that morality had to be objective, nor that there had to be a creator god for there to be morality), I do feel comfortable calling you out for a perceived intellectual dishonesty. If I got what Avalon was saying (probably because I am very familiar with Hume's body of work), I figured you did as well, and were just arguing for the sake of an argument, not to actually address what Avalon was saying.

I'm sorry you find that insulting, but I can only make assumptions based on what I read, and it did seem you were consistently missing Avalon's point.


Hmmm...without going back and reading every post over the last several pages, it seems to me that morality is created by social contact, and therefore subjective. However, a contract implies all parties have agreed, at least implicitly, meaning none of us are free to suddenly withdraw our consent and start gunning people down.

I don't see how the presence of god would make morality any more objective...it would just mean that someone more powerful is enforcing his subjective morality on us.

But that's off the top of my head. Take it for what it's worth.

At least the thread is going someplace interesting, rather than the usual first cause/burden of proof/all beliefs are created equal circle.

Liberty's Edge

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


That's just it. As long as it is a human being deciding what "objective morality" is, another human is going to disagree with that.

Why can't morality be something that exists objectively independent of humans, with humans struggling to perceive and understand it, and sometimes getting it wrong? Over time humans' understanding of what is or isn't moral evolves, with better or more exact approximations of the true, objective morality replacing more flawed approximations -- but all the while, it isn't the truth of morality that's been changing, only humans understanding of it.

In other words, just like humans' understanding of physics.

Presumably this pretty much is what philosophy tries to do,

It was Hume's specifically stated purpose of what he was trying to, in fact.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
I don't see how the presence of god would make morality any more objective...it would just mean that someone more powerful is enforcing his subjective morality on us.

I tend to agree with this.


houstonderek wrote:
Here's the problem: Avalon never said a creator was necessary for morality. Not once. Just that, in the absence of a creator, absolute morality would be more difficult to prove.

Which I then went on to attempt anyway, although the effort was ignored and/or claimed to be irrlevant without actually being addressed head-on.

Houstonderek wrote:
Secondly, what constitutes "necessary for the survival of the species" is wildly subjective, outside of food, shelter and reproduction for the human species.

Not necessarily true. Communal organization is found in so many species because it works. The fossil record will give you similar species that apparently didn't cooperate as well, and their tenure on Earth appears to be a lot shorter. If that's "subjective," to you, then it's up to you to provide your personal definition. And no, I'm not talking about subjective "standards of living" or whatever else.

Houstonderek wrote:
Kirth, considering that you consistently used a point Avalon most definitely did not asset as the basis of much of your argument (a) Avalon never stated that morality had to be objective, (b) nor that there had to be a creator god for there to be morality), I do feel comfortable calling you out for a perceived intellectual dishonesty.

Derek, (a) That was clearly understood, and addressed in my argument.

(b) Failing to address counterexamples, and instead declaring that they somehow "don't count" -- without any reason why not -- and instead re-asserting the need for a Creator as the only possible objective basis, seems like a clear case of arguing by ignoring.


houstonderek wrote:
Here's the problem: Avalon never said a creator was necessary for morality. Not once. Just that, in the absence of a creator, absolute morality would be more difficult to prove.

I understood that quite well, and then went on to attempt it anyway -- my issue is that the effort was ignored and/or claimed to be irrelevant without actually being addressed.

Houstonderek wrote:
Secondly, what constitutes "necessary for the survival of the species" is wildly subjective, outside of food, shelter and reproduction for the human species.

Not necessarily true. Communal organization is found in so many species because it works. The fossil record will give you similar species that apparently didn't cooperate as well, and their tenure on Earth appears to be a lot shorter. If that's "subjective," to you, then it's up to you to provide your personal definition. And no, I'm not talking about subjective "standards of living" or whatever else. BTW, thank you -- this is the first time anyone has bothered, however off-handedly, to actually address the argument I was trying to set up.

Houstonderek wrote:
Kirth, considering that you consistently used a point Avalon most definitely did not asset as the basis of much of your argument (a) Avalon never stated that morality had to be objective, (b) nor that there had to be a creator god for there to be morality), I do feel comfortable calling you out for a perceived intellectual dishonesty.

Derek, (a) That was clearly understood, and addressed in my argument.

(b) Failing to address counterexamples, and instead declaring that they somehow "don't count" or are merely "sidetracking" -- without any reason why not -- and instead re-asserting the need for a Creator as the only possible objective basis, seems like a clear case of arguing by ignoring. If the conclusion of a potentially legitimate counterexample -- the premise of which was already conceded -- was to be simply ignored, then it seemed a safe assumption that only the original claim would be accepted. An easy way to prove that assumption wrong would be to address the counterexample. Declaring "discussion over" instead merely reinforced the assumption.


AvalonXQ wrote:
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
Avalon - so, do you think morality as it currently exists is objective or subjective? Why?
Sorry, but the discussion environment here isn't civil enough for me to want to involve my personal beliefs. I saw how many snide and attacking remarks I got just for the beliefs people incorrectly thought I was espousing -- up to and including being hateful to others!

You mean the time where it was pointed out to you that no amount of deities will make moral codes any less subjective? Or the time when you were asked to justify your assumption that compliance with a universal plan would entail morality?

Yeah, regular crucifixion. What were people thinking? I mean aside from trolling the thread with more complaints about tone.


Samnell wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
Avalon - so, do you think morality as it currently exists is objective or subjective? Why?
Sorry, but the discussion environment here isn't civil enough for me to want to involve my personal beliefs. I saw how many snide and attacking remarks I got just for the beliefs people incorrectly thought I was espousing -- up to and including being hateful to others!

You mean the time where it was pointed out to you that no amount of deities will make moral codes any less subjective? Or the time when you were asked to justify your assumption that compliance with a universal plan would entail morality?

Yeah, regular crucifixion. What were people thinking? I mean aside from trolling the thread with more complaints about tone.

I had hoped this wasn't yet another case of anyone logically arguing against the need for a Creator to be declared as "attacking," with the logic ignored. I'm still hoping that Avalon will address the counterexample I provided, instead of simply making that tired old accusation.

It's like all the debates that biologists used to have with Creationists:
Creationist: "Do you expect me to believe that we could evolve randomly?"
Biologist: "It's not random."
Creationist: "Since it can't be random, Goddidit!"
Biologist: "It's not random. Selection is on the basis of..."
Creationist: "See, you admit it! It's not random! Godddidit!"
Biologist: "No! Will you listen, please? My argument is that..."
Creationist: "Oh, so now you're going to attack my beliefs! Obviously your argument, whatever it was, has no merit -- otherwise you'd agree with everything I say and not attack!"

I'm still hoping that's not the case here.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Here's the problem: Avalon never said a creator was necessary for morality. Not once. Just that, in the absence of a creator, absolute morality would be more difficult to prove.

Which I then went on to attempt anyway, although the effort was ignored and/or claimed to be irrlevant without actually being addressed head-on.

Houstonderek wrote:
Secondly, what constitutes "necessary for the survival of the species" is wildly subjective, outside of food, shelter and reproduction for the human species.

Not necessarily true. Communal organization is found in so many species because it works. The fossil record will give you similar species that apparently didn't cooperate as well, and their tenure on Earth appears to be a lot shorter. If that's "subjective," to you, then it's up to you to provide your personal definition. And no, I'm not talking about subjective "standards of living" or whatever else.

Houstonderek wrote:
Kirth, considering that you consistently used a point Avalon most definitely did not asset as the basis of much of your argument (a) Avalon never stated that morality had to be objective, (b) nor that there had to be a creator god for there to be morality), I do feel comfortable calling you out for a perceived intellectual dishonesty.

Derek, (a) That was clearly understood, and addressed in my argument.

(b) Failing to address counterexamples, and instead declaring that they somehow "don't count" -- without any reason why not -- and instead re-asserting the need for a Creator as the only possible objective basis, seems like a clear case of arguing by ignoring.

You were providing counter examples to non-existent examples. And we're discussing morals, not rules. You said so yourself. Laws =/= morals. Not objective survival necessities, morals. We are social animals. Pack/herd animals or whatever. Which tends to be the norm for quite a few mammals. That has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of "subjective" or "objective" morals. "Stupid/not stupid" =/= "moral/not moral".

So, that being the case, I apologize. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Or we just have extremely different ideas of what "morals" are. Some behaviors are intrinsically counter-productive to the survival of the species, but that doesn't necessarily make them immoral. Their morality or immorality is completely subjective. Not breeding, for one, is a pretty stupid way to try to propagate a species, yet many people make that decision all the time. Are they "immoral"? Subjective. Some people think it is a good thing and saves resources. Some people think it's a bad thing, since most people who chose not to reproduce tend to exhibit behaviors and tendencies that ensure survival (good decision making, superior intellect and problem solving skills), and reproduction is necessary for species survival. However, if only people who do not exhibit positive survival skills are the only ones who are allowed to breed, the extinction of the species in guaranteed, since chances are no one with the intellect to get us off the planet will have been born (the "Idiocracy" theory). And, if we cannot get off the planet, we eventually will go extinct.

I can go down the line with these all day. Nothing shows me that human constructed "morals" are anything but subjective.


houstonderek wrote:
I can go down the line with these all day. Nothing shows me that human constructed "morals" are anything but subjective.

Right -- you're a nihilist, and believe ALL morals are subjective. That's OK, as far as your argument goes -- you're being clear up front that you refuse to accept any objective bases as valid. Avalon is not, however. He claimed that objective morals could exist, if and only if an objective source of those morals existed. He then posited that only a Creator could be an objective foundation. I then established another internally-consistent system founded on an obejctive basis.

You might not agree with that basis, but that's no different from Samnell disagreeing with a perceived Creator. The basis itself is objective by the standards that Avalon set up, and therefore any system derived from it is as well. The fact that you reject Avalon's premises does not invalidate the fact that I've used those same premises to provide him a counterexample.

If you want me to instead argue using your initial premise -- that nothing is objective -- well, nihilism is pretty well spoken for. We can look at Sartre instead of Hume.


My poem is moral, damn it!

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
I can go down the line with these all day. Nothing shows me that human constructed "morals" are anything but subjective.

Right -- you're a nihilist, and believe ALL morals are subjective. That's OK, as far as your argument goes -- you're being clear up front that you refuse to accept any objective bases as valid. Avalon is not, however. He claimed that objective morals could exist, if and only if an objective source of those morals existed. He then posited that only a Creator could be an objective foundation. I then established another internally-consistent system founded on an obejctive basis.

You might not agree with that basis, but that's no different from Samnell disagreeing with a perceived Creator. The basis itself is objective by the standards that Avalon set up, and therefore any system derived from it is as well. The fact that you reject Avalon's premises does not invalidate the fact that I've used those same premises to provide him a counterexample.

If you want me to instead argue using your initial premise -- that nothing is objective -- well, nihilism is pretty well spoken for. We can look at Sartre instead of Hume.

Actually Avalon allowed for another option for objective morals, but that was lost in the shuffle, apparently. He/she never stated, with the exception of to argue a specific point, that only a creator could be responsible for objective morals.

And, since Avalon's entire argument was based on Hume, the insistence that he/she claimed a creator was the only possibility for objective morals is also disingenuous, as you well know that Hume was in search of an objective morality absent of a creator, using scientific principles he gleaned from Newton.


houstonderek wrote:
Actually Avalon allowed for another option for objective morals, but that was lost in the shuffle, apparently. He/she never stated, with the exception of to argue a specific point, that only a creator could be responsible for objective morals.

No -- Avalon claimed to be open to another option, but then wouldn't look at it when it was presented. He never stated openly that only a Creator could be responsible, but implied it by refusing to consider alternatives.

Avalon seems to be with Hume only as far as Hume supports his unspoken thesis. If Hume already refuted the counterexample I provided, I'm unaware of it. If so, reference would be appreciated. Certainly Avalon did not, either by explanation or by reference.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Actually Avalon allowed for another option for objective morals, but that was lost in the shuffle, apparently. He/she never stated, with the exception of to argue a specific point, that only a creator could be responsible for objective morals.

No -- Avalon claimed to be open to another option, but then wouldn't look at it when it was presented. He never stated openly that only a Creator could be responsible, but implied it by refusing to consider alternatives.

If Hume already refuted the counterexample I provided, I'm unaware of it. If so, reference would be appreciated. Certainly Avalon did not, either by explanation or by reference.

Hume pretty much rejected the idea of a creator god. He had no patience for religion, really. He pretty much came up with the "Well, who created the creator, then, and where are all of the other universes we need to compare this one to to get a grip on what the creator dude was up to?"

He wanted to find an objective morality using scientific principles. He saw no evidence in the world to substantiate any theology that existed in his time.

I think the disconnect is this: when Avalon bought up Hume and the is/ought line of reasoning, I automatically read all of the posts through that filter. I think his/her assumption was that people would be familiar enough with Hume that he/she didn't have to spell out in great detail what Hume's premise was, but that it would just be understood and y'all could debate that premise.


houstonderek wrote:

I think the disconnect is this: when Avalon bought up Hume and the is/ought line of reasoning, I automatically read all of the posts through that filter. I think his/her assumption was that people would be familiar enough with Hume that he/she didn't have to spell out in great detail what Hume's premise was, but that it would just be understood and y'all could debate that premise.

Yeah, I'm familiar with Hume on the obvious stuff -- and when I say that Avalon was using Hume only as far as it seemed to support some underlying agenda, you'll notice that Avalon (unlike Hume) is explicitly OK with a creator god being a teliologically objective basis for morality -- Avalon's starting point is therefore a bit different, and I was responding based on that.

The closest thing to a refutation I can think of in Hume is his reasoning that a set of morals based on current conditions will be invalid as soon as those conditions change. That also shoots down a Creator as an objective basis, though -- who's to say the Creator never changes, and also never changes his plans, and also won't let the world change so as to require modifications of plans? In that sense, Hume supports you far more than he does Avalon.


Derek, are you sure the argument Avalon's making is just a Hume rehash? That's not how it seems to be rather explictly stated. Aside from a single line on teleology (which, in a theological context, does not exclude a creator god) - I don't see anything to contradict the actual thesis, stated multiple times, that objective morality cannot exist without a creator god.

Further, if add a "as a reason for objective morality" to Kirth's post, (after the bit about rejecting anything but a creator) it makes far more sense. It also would've let Avalon expand on alternatives, which I agree seem to come more from Derek's reading of Hume than what Avalon actually said.

(I don't know what it is about this that keeps me interested enough to have a stake in it.)

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I think the disconnect is this: when Avalon bought up Hume and the is/ought line of reasoning, I automatically read all of the posts through that filter. I think his/her assumption was that people would be familiar enough with Hume that he/she didn't have to spell out in great detail what Hume's premise was, but that it would just be understood and y'all could debate that premise.

Yeah, I'm familiar with Hume on the obvious stuff -- and when I say that Avalon was using Hume only as far as it seemed to support some underlying agenda, you'll notice that Avalon (unlike Hume) is explicitly OK with a creator god being a teliologically objective basis for morality -- Avalon's starting point is therefore a bit different, and I was responding based on that.

But like I said, if Hume at some point rejected the argument I made, give me a recap, or at least a reference -- I'm sure Avalon would accept that much as well.

You insist that morals are objective simply because we exist, if I am getting your conclusion correct.

Hume isn't that presumptuous. He wanted to find absolute proof that morals are objective using scientific principles. Like, no argument, the earth orbits the sun poof. Until that proof was found, he hesitated to declare that morals are, in fact, objective.

You're using logical causality to make your point. Hume would reject that as lacking scientific vigor. Until you could point objectively and declare something was absolutely, irrefutably, a fact, he'd continue thinking morality was more likely than not subjective.


houstonderek wrote:
...The logical conclusion of atheism is that really life has no true meaning...

Actually with this point I can entirely agree on. It was/is a comforting point to me.

I always put it as "life has no inherit meaning, only what you give it".


Kirth Gersen wrote:


You might not agree with that basis, but that's no different from Samnell disagreeing with a perceived Creator. The basis itself is objective by the standards that Avalon set up, and therefore any system derived from it is as well. The fact that you reject Avalon's premises does not invalidate the fact that I've used those same premises to provide him a counterexample.

For what it's worth I'm not objecting to Avalon's thesis because it has a creator deity and those obviously don't exist. My position is that even having one available doesn't make morality any more objective.


houstonderek wrote:
Hume isn't that presumptuous.

Correct, but Avalon, in contrast, appears to be. Remember that the challenge was not to demonstrate an objective basis that Hume would accept, but to demonstrate and objective basis that would apply equally as well as a teleological Creator (see also my edit re: Hume's reasoning re: changing conditions).

Kirth Gersen wrote:

The closest thing to a refutation I can think of in Hume is his reasoning that a set of morals based on current conditions will be invalid as soon as those conditions change. That also shoots down a Creator as an objective basis, though -- who's to say the Creator never changes, and also never changes his plans, and also won't let the world change so as to require modifications of plans? In that sense, Hume supports you far more than he does Avalon.


Samnell wrote:
For what it's worth I'm not objecting to Avalon's thesis because it has a creator deity and those obviously don't exist. My position is that even having one available doesn't make morality any more objective.

Understood -- sorry, my 2-word recap didn't capture that. You and Hume and Derek are all on the same page in that regard, but Avalon, by his initial assertion, is not.

If the challenge were to address all of Hume's issues, I agree that my example fails. But the challenge as I understood it was to find a standard other than a Creator that nevertheless was equally objective, assuming a Creator "counts." In other words, Avalon's argument specifically allows Hume's "is/ought" dichotomy, but specifically excludes all of Hume's arguments against a Creator fulfilling that objectivity.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Premise: Humanity must exist for morality of any kind (subjective or objective) to apply to it. No humanity, no human morality. This is true even in the absence of a Creator.

An interesting premise, but let me share my take on it -- humanity must exist at any given time in order for morality (or any other property) to apply to it (nonvacuously) at that time.

Quote:
Correlary: Since existence is objectively necessary for morality, conditions favoring continued existence are objectively useful in maintaining morality. Conditions or strategies that interfere with it are objectively deletorious. This holds true regardless of whether a separate moral scheme exists.

This is what I entirely disagree with. Morality is not a distributive quantity. Two men who are each "80% moral" do not sum to 1.6 "morality units" on some scale, and there is no reason to believe that the continued survival of humanity has anything to do with whether humanity is moral today. It is not an objective goal of morality to preserve the species; survival is not an objective morality goal.

What I'm getting as an implicit premise in KG's argument is: "Any world with human beings is intrinsically more moral than a world without human beings." (Another premise is that "Each human ought to strive for a more moral world," but that's a different problem that can be addressed later.)
However, it is just as easy to define morality as a negative -- for example, we might say that any world that is "free from malice" is a "perfectly moral" world. And using such criteria, human survival is not a goal of morality. In fact, using this criteria (and assuming that only humans experience malice), finding a way to drive humans to extinction without malice would be a worthwhile goal.
The fact that any code of moral behavior would become irrelevant if it resulted in extinction does not prove that code to be "objectively wrong" because survival may not be a goal of morality.
It is tempting for those of us who understand the principles of natural selection to couch everything in selective principles -- but the fact that animals with extreme version of traits may be selected against does not imply that they have "less" of those traits than other animals. The most beautiful flower, the largest cichlid, and the most moral human may all lose to other members of their species or to other species, and that doesn't force us to eliminate them from the definitions of "beautiful", "large", or "moral".


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Premise: Humanity must exist for morality of any kind (subjective or objective) to apply to it. No humanity, no human morality. This is true even in the absence of a Creator.

An interesting premise, but let me share my take on it -- humanity must exist at any given time in order for morality (or any other property) to apply to it (nonvacuously) at that time.

Quote:
Correlary: Since existence is objectively necessary for morality, conditions favoring continued existence are objectively useful in maintaining morality. Conditions or strategies that interfere with it are objectively deletorious. This holds true regardless of whether a separate moral scheme exists.

This is what I entirely disagree with. Morality is not a distributive quantity. Two men who are each "80% moral" do not sum to 1.6 "morality units" on some scale, and there is no reason to believe that the continued survival of humanity has anything to do with whether humanity is moral today. It is not an objective goal of morality to preserve the species; survival is not an objective morality goal.

What I'm getting as an implicit premise in KG's argument is: "Any world with human beings is intrinsically more moral than a world without human beings." (Another premise is that "Each human ought to strive for a more moral world," but that's a different problem that can be addressed later.)
However, it is just as easy to define morality as a negative -- for example, we might say that any world that is "free from malice" is a "perfectly moral" world. And using such criteria, human survival is not a goal of morality. In fact, using this criteria (and assuming that only humans experience malice), finding a way to drive humans to extinction without malice would be a worthwhile goal.
The fact that any code of moral behavior would become irrelevant if it resulted in extinction does not prove that code to be "objectively wrong" because survival may not be a goal of morality.
It is tempting for those of us who understand the principles of natural selection to couch everything in selective principles -- but the fact that animals with extreme version of traits may be selected against does not imply that they have "less" of those traits than other animals. The most beautiful flower, the largest cichlid, and the most moral human may all lose to other members of their species or to other species, and that doesn't force us to eliminate them from the definitions of "beautiful", "large", or "moral".

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Samnell wrote:
For what it's worth I'm not objecting to Avalon's thesis because it has a creator deity and those obviously don't exist. My position is that even having one available doesn't make morality any more objective.

Understood -- sorry, my 2-word recap didn't capture that. You and Hume and Derek are all on the same page in that regard, but Avalon, by his initial assertion, is not.

If the challenge were to address all of Hume's issues, I agree that my example fails. But the challenge as I understood it was to find a standard other than a Creator that nevertheless was equally objective, assuming a Creator "counts." In other words, Avalon's argument specifically allows Hume's "is/ought" dichotomy, but specifically excludes all of Hume's arguments against a Creator fulfilling that objectivity.

to be fair, Avalon never stated that a creator being necessarily meant there would be an objective morality, just that there could possibly be one. And, since Avalon never expanded on the teleology allowance in any way, presuming it had to be theological in nature is, well, presumptuous.


AvalonXQ wrote:
It is not an objective goal of morality to preserve the species; survival is not an objective morality goal.

Then neither is fulfilling some Creator's plan, and we're back to Hume in his entirety, with NO objective morals whatsoever -- not even teleological ones. If a moral system based on a Creator's plan is objective, then a system based on the existence of the moral is equally moral.

Let me expand by saying that a moral code derived from continuation of the species need not resemble a moral code derived from the Bible.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
In other words, Avalon's argument specifically allows Hume's "is/ought" dichotomy, but specifically excludes all of Hume's arguments against a Creator fulfilling that objectivity.

Hume's arguments against teleology were primarily in the field of inscrutability -- that is, what we know about the world isn't enough to figure out the nature of the Creator or figure out morality from there. Morality through teleology requires figuring out an awful lot that Hume believed to be unknown.

Of course, I may just be forgetting Hume's arguments in the direction you mean. It's been a while.


houstonderek wrote:
And, since Avalon never expanded on the teleology allowance in any way, presuming it had to be theological in nature is, well, presumptuous.
AvalonXQ wrote:


Teleology is an acceptable objective basis for a moral code.

He didn't expand on it; he stated point-blank that it was acceptable to him.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
f a moral system based on a Creator's plan is objective, then a system based on the existence of the moral is equally moral.

I assume you meant "equally objective". I don't really feel you have supported this idea.

IF any part of creation has an objective purpose, then a morality based on fulfilling that purpose has an objective basis.
IF any set of entities must survive to exhibit morality, it does not follow in the same way that a morality based on the survival of the set of entities has an objective basis.


AvalonXQ wrote:
Of course, I may just be forgetting Hume's arguments in the direction you mean. It's been a while.

Hume also argued that teleology required an unchanging world, which was not an acceptable assumption. Therefore, if conditions changed, the morals needed to fulfill the desires and/or plan of a theoretical Creator would also have to change to address them, and therefore morals are a function of conditions, rather than an independently objective system.

For teleology to be an acceptable basis for an objective morality, then this argument needs to be thrown out, and therefore species survival fits equally well. If Hume's objection is retained, both your argument and mine are thereby refuted, and a Creator doesn't count.

Liberty's Edge

PlungingForward wrote:

Derek, are you sure the argument Avalon's making is just a Hume rehash? That's not how it seems to be rather explictly stated. Aside from a single line on teleology (which, in a theological context, does not exclude a creator god) - I don't see anything to contradict the actual thesis, stated multiple times, that objective morality cannot exist without a creator god.

Further, if add a "as a reason for objective morality" to Kirth's post, (after the bit about rejecting anything but a creator) it makes far more sense. It also would've let Avalon expand on alternatives, which I agree seem to come more from Derek's reading of Hume than what Avalon actually said.

(I don't know what it is about this that keeps me interested enough to have a stake in it.)

The thing is, Avalon is narrowly focused one specific tenet of Hume's philosophy. Others are trying to expand that beyond the narrow focus (including me, to be honest).

Outside of that narrow focus, there are all sorts of debates that Avalon doesn't seem terribly interested in pursuing. And, as most of the counters aren't taking on the focus, I get his/her point (Avalon, please stop making me type "he/she, his/her", I hate wasted keystrokes!).


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Understood -- sorry, my 2-word recap didn't capture that.

I'll accept penance in the form of three trips through the spanking machine. :)


AvalonXQ wrote:

I assume you meant "equally objective". I don't really feel you have supported this idea.

IF any part of creation has an objective purpose, then a morality based on fulfilling that purpose has an objective basis.
IF any set of entities must survive to exhibit morality, it does not follow in the same way that a morality based on the survival of the set of entities has an objective basis.

You need to define "moral" then. I'm using the definition of "a set of principles such that those fulfilling the foundational goal are moral; those going against that goal are immoral." Two possible objective foundational goals are a Creator's plans and the survival of the species that these morals are to apply to. Indeed, the second applies either independently, or equally as well in conjunction with the first.

If your definition of "moral" is a bunch of examples that you then get to pick, there's no way to address your arguments without knowing the standard by which we're judging those examples.


houstonderek wrote:
(Avalon, please stop making me type "he/she, his/her", I hate wasted keystrokes!).

Gender me according to your preference; I will not be offended.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Samnell wrote:
For what it's worth I'm not objecting to Avalon's thesis because it has a creator deity and those obviously don't exist. My position is that even having one available doesn't make morality any more objective.
Understood -- sorry, my 2-word recap didn't capture that. You and Hume and Derek are all on the same page in that regard, but Avalon, by his initial assertion, is not.

Why do I feel the need to take another shower today after reading this?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
AvalonXQ wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
(Avalon, please stop making me type "he/she, his/her", I hate wasted keystrokes!).
Gender me according to your preference; I will not be offended.

It? :)


houstonderek wrote:

Why do I feel the need to take another shower today after reading this?

You're into dead Scotsmen and bearded misanthropes? :)


AvalonXQ wrote:
The fact that any code of moral behavior would become irrelevant if it resulted in extinction does not prove that code to be "objectively wrong" because survival may not be a goal of morality.

Here we go, then: you're presupposing that morality is founded on an explicit goal -- and hence there needs to be someone or something to assign that goal. Further, by your assertion, any goal that is determined by humans is subjective. Yet somehow you make an allowance that any goal determined by a Creator is somehow objective instead.

By that logic, of course only a Creator is an objective source of morality, because that's how you've defined things.

If morality is not founded on an assigned "goal," but rather an objective foundation, then a Creator, or species survival, or both are equally viable as objective foundations.

Liberty's Edge

samnell wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Understood -- sorry, my 2-word recap didn't capture that. You and Hume and Derek are all on the same page in that regard, but Avalon, by his initial assertion, is not.
Why do I feel the need to take another shower today after reading this?
You're into dead Scotsmen and bearded misanthropes? :)

Pfft. ;)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
...you're presupposing that morality is founded on an explicit goal -- and hence there needs to be someone or something to assign that goal.

Yeah, I thought I covered that.

Pay attention to me damn it! :)

Scarab Sages

181 new posts suddenly? Anything important I need to check out? (Kind of busy with life at the moment.)

10,451 to 10,500 of 13,109 << first < prev | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / A Civil Religious Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.