tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post3813460753972767352..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Moral nonrealismVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70434022725120629702017-06-02T23:02:11.993-07:002017-06-02T23:02:11.993-07:00Yes or no: I do not agree there is such a thing as...Yes or no: I do not agree there is such a thing as an "absolutely true moral proposition of any kind". Yet, you asked me to prove that position. Will you concede you were wrong to ask me to do that?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40475589654370202672017-06-02T17:44:00.970-07:002017-06-02T17:44:00.970-07:00Hugo Pelland said...
" Ok, let me try thi... Hugo Pelland said...<br /><br />" Ok, let me try this: I do not agree there is such a thing as an "absolutely true moral proposition of any kind". "<br />--Ok, so you think moral nonrealism is the case.<br /><br />"Yet, you asked me to prove that position. Will you concede you were wrong to ask me to do that?"<br />--You told me I was somehow being inconsistent in asserting moral nonrealism. Yet you assert moral nonrealism.<br /><br />I think you thought a recognition of objectivity within a closed system of logic was somehow inconsistent with denial of objective moral propositions in the sense of moral absolutes.<br /><br />Both uses of the term "objective" are appropriate in the two different contexts but it is important to be clear as to which sense of the word is being employed.<br /><br /><br /> June 02, 2017 1:43 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41645894468968822092017-06-02T13:43:46.464-07:002017-06-02T13:43:46.464-07:00Ok, let me try this: I do not agree there is such ...Ok, let me try this: I do not agree there is such a thing as an "absolutely true moral proposition of any kind". Yet, you asked me to prove that position. Will you concede you were wrong to ask me to do that?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85816962690717407682017-06-02T13:35:18.483-07:002017-06-02T13:35:18.483-07:00Hugo Pelland said...
" anything else?&qu... Hugo Pelland said...<br /><br /> " anything else?"<br /> --Yes, I want you to do the following<br /> 1. State a demonstrably absolutely true moral proposition of any kind.<br /> 2. Clearly summarize the reasoning behind an atheistic assertion of an absolute morality.<br /><br />" SP, you ask me to prove demonstrate a position I do not hold. That's where EVERY single encounter I have with you leads to. Therefore..."<br />--Ok, so you agree that moral nonrealism is the case. The notion of absolute morality is not the case.<br /><br />Yet you somehow accused me of inconsistency and failing to see some sort of broader picture. <br /><br />What happens in our encounters is that I exposed the poorly thought through aspects of your assertions.<br /><br /><br /> June 01, 2017 9:45 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38360368521381571312017-06-01T21:45:45.967-07:002017-06-01T21:45:45.967-07:00SP, you ask me to prove demonstrate a position I d...SP, you ask me to prove demonstrate a position I do not hold. That's where EVERY single encounter I have with you leads to. Therefore...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77402937102479705432017-06-01T06:28:01.639-07:002017-06-01T06:28:01.639-07:00Hugo Pelland said...
" It's funny how...Hugo Pelland said...<br /><br />" It's funny how you had written about what I was writing about, but I posted it after as it was longer and got distracted... anyway, you think it's wishful thinking. Great argument;"<br />--I have argued against absolute morality throughout this thread and it's predecessor. I do not intend to repost the full argument with every post I make.<br /><br />That statement was just a simple assertion based on my arguments already presented.<br /><br />" anything else?"<br />--Yes, I want you to do the following<br />1. State a demonstrably absolutely true moral proposition of any kind.<br />2. Clearly summarize the reasoning behind an atheistic assertion of an absolute morality.<br /><br /> May 31, 2017 10:30 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30475092698817613142017-06-01T06:20:08.054-07:002017-06-01T06:20:08.054-07:00Hugo Pelland said...
Stardusty Psyche said......Hugo Pelland said...<br /><br /> Stardusty Psyche said...<br /> " Harris seems to think morality just sort of has to be based on egalitarian human flourishing, akin to judgements of good physical health."<br /><br />" There is often these little snipets of what you 'think' some other position is, instead of addressing it."<br />--I don't "think Harris compares morality to health in order to give egalitarian human flourishing a quasi absolute status. I know it because I have heard him say it repeatedly."<br /><br />" Hence, he is both an Atheist and believe in objective moral truths."<br />--If by "objective" one means "absolute" that is an incoherent atheist position.<br /><br />" But you don't. And what is inconsistent with your position is that you say that there is such a thing as an objective moral truth, even if you start with just 1, or a few, but then also claim that there is no such thing as objective moral truths because they depend on the system that was created subjectively. That's a contradiction. "<br />--No, you just don't understand the difference between "objective" meaning "universal" or "absolute" versus "objective" meaning to navigate by postulated rules based on postulates of principle.<br /><br />The latter is what we do in mathematics to reach objectively true mathematical answers. The former is an incoherent atheist position.<br /><br /><br /><br />" You know what's fascinating here? You are doing the same dance as Legion of Logic did above, but from an Atheistic perspective. "<br />--LoL, like W L Craig, is correct in saying on atheism there can be no objective morality in the sense of absolute moral propositions.<br /><br /> "That's absurd for 2 reasons.<br />" 1) You know of Atheists who agree there is objective truths and morality."<br />--Those atheists are wrong.<br /><br />" 2) If God exists, we can argue that he is deciding what moral model to follow, making morality a preference, but that of one person;"<br />--On the speculation of a perfectly wise and good person that decision would be perfectly true and good.<br /><br /><br /> Your positions is absurd for 2 reasons.<br />" 1) You know of Atheists who agree there is objective truths and morality. It was discussed here, on the web by prominent philosophers, and for centuries by our ancestors."<br />--They are wrong.<br /><br />" 2) If objective moral truths do not exist, it implies that people are deciding what moral model to follow, making morality a preference, that of a few people, and nothing can be said to be moral or not, as the system could be changed; "<br />--Yes, that is the case.<br /><br />"or, it is true that people are not the deciders, because there is such a thing as objective moral truths, and we are back to 1)""<br />--Nothing of the sort has ever been demonstrated.<br /><br /><br /> May 31, 2017 10:19 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80936411555548097702017-06-01T05:02:44.613-07:002017-06-01T05:02:44.613-07:00Chad: With no moral absolutes . . . we have no rea...Chad: <i>With no moral absolutes . . . we have no reason to prefer the desires of Jewish people who would like to live over the desires of people who like dead skin lamps.</i> <br /><br />This perhaps highlights where our differences lie. The irrealist might ask why we need a <i>reason</i> for this preference. Can't we just say that we value people's lives more than their persecutor's soft furnishings and are prepared to stand up for them and we don't know why?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65370102312311404762017-05-31T22:30:48.248-07:002017-05-31T22:30:48.248-07:00It's funny how you had written about what I wa...It's funny how you had written about what I was writing about, but I posted it after as it was longer and got distracted... anyway, you think it's wishful thinking. Great argument; anything else?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66470808548282082702017-05-31T22:19:07.041-07:002017-05-31T22:19:07.041-07:00Stardusty Psyche said...
" Harris seems to th...Stardusty Psyche said...<br />"<i> Harris seems to think morality just sort of has to be based on egalitarian human flourishing, akin to judgements of good physical health.</i>"<br />That's what I don't like reading your comments. There is often these little snipets of what you 'think' some other position is, instead of addressing it. You did that with mine on several occasions. Here you do it with Harris. At least you put the words 'seems to' in front, showing that you are not certain, but why wouldn't you just quote him if you want to address some of his position? Moreover, the point that he does raise in the podcast I linked to is only that he is a moral realist. Hence, he is both an Atheist and believe in objective moral truths.<br /><br />But you don't. And what is inconsistent with your position is that you say that there is such a thing as an objective moral truth, even if you start with just 1, or a few, but then also claim that there is no such thing as objective moral truths because they depend on the system that was created subjectively. That's a contradiction. If we agree that there is such a thing as say, justice, objectively, then it does not matter that we are defining it; it's still something objective. We are trying to do our best to figure out what's objectively just, but we are not moving back to something subjective.<br /><br />You know what's fascinating here? You are doing the same dance as Legion of Logic did above, but from an Atheistic perspective. To him, I said:<br /><br />"That's absurd for 2 reasons.<br />1) You know of Atheists who agree there is objective truths and morality. It was discussed here, on the web by prominent philosophers, and for centuries by our ancestors.<br />2) If God exists, we can argue that he is deciding what moral model to follow, making morality a preference, but that of one person; or God does not decide because there is such a thing as objective moral truths, and we are back to 1)"<br /><br />To you, it's a bit different:<br /><br />Your positions is absurd for 2 reasons.<br />1) You know of Atheists who agree there is objective truths and morality. It was discussed here, on the web by prominent philosophers, and for centuries by our ancestors.<br />2) If objective moral truths do not exist, it implies that people are deciding what moral model to follow, making morality a preference, that of a few people, and nothing can be said to be moral or not, as the system could be changed; or, it is true that people are not the deciders, because there is such a thing as objective moral truths, and we are back to 1)World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10442473136050916592017-05-31T22:09:47.342-07:002017-05-31T22:09:47.342-07:00Hugo Pelland said...
" 1) You know of Ath...Hugo Pelland said...<br /><br />" 1) You know of Atheists who agree there is objective truths and morality. It was discussed here, on the web by prominent philosophers, and for centuries by our ancestors."<br />--Not soundly. Atheists who assert moral absolutes suffer from wishful thinking.<br /><br /><br /> May 31, 2017 6:37 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39297880684663024772017-05-31T22:04:25.945-07:002017-05-31T22:04:25.945-07:00Hugo Pelland said...
" I almost ignored t...Hugo Pelland said...<br /><br />" I almost ignored that but I saw my name, so it was hard... <br /><br />Stardusty Psyche said: "--Have you been listening to Sam Harris podcasts again?"<br /> <br />" Interestingly enough, I am doing that right now!... what's wrong with that?"<br />--I just had a feeling from what you were saying, that's all. Harris seems to think morality just sort of has to be based on egalitarian human flourishing, akin to judgements of good physical health. Well, as warm and fuzzy as that might make one feel, there simply is no sound rational basis for such a position.<br /><br /> "" To be frank, I did not read everything here. (Well, I skipped SP's...)"<br /> --Oooouch..this time the hurtin won't heal!"<br />" You know why I purposely ignore what you write. But you don't care, that's the problem. So keep being a sarcastic smartass if you want."<br />--Danngg, don't get your boxers in a bunch there big guy. Most of my words are very serious, but when somebody singles me out for being ignored its Glenn Close time.<br /><br /><br />" You should really listen to the podcast with Jordan Peterson, because this is what he is doing too. You have this notion of micro-objectivity, yet reject the broader objectivity. It's inconsistent."<br />--Inconsistent with what? Increasing the size of the finite closed system is not a qualitative change.<br /><br />If we make 10 postulates in system A, and 100 postulates in system B, both remain closed systems. At what degree of "broader" does a closed system of objectivity somehow become something other than a closed system of objectivity?<br /><br />To make a determination of absolute morality we cannot found our system on postulates, rather, demonstrably true moral propositions. The problem with that is that nobody has ever stated one, not even one, only zero.<br /><br /><br /> May 31, 2017 9:21 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50820918761632023252017-05-31T21:26:26.807-07:002017-05-31T21:26:26.807-07:00Legion of Logic said...
" As to how this ...Legion of Logic said...<br /><br />" As to how this relates to morality, it's the reason I don't find the subject at all profitable - ... I don't see it being possible for an atheist or a Christian to convince the other of any moral model without there first being a religious conversion or loss of belief."<br />--The profit, as it were, is in refutation of an argument from morality that claims absolute moral values logically or demonstrably exist, and therefore there must be a moral source which is god.<br /><br />I have never gotten anybody to cite a single demonstrably absolute moral proposition. Never. I have searched. I have asked. Not any viable candidate has ever been shown to me.<br /><br />That sort of argument from morality fails for its utter lack of sound argument or demonstration of its very core, at least one demonstrably absolute moral proposition.<br /><br /><br /> May 31, 2017 6:22 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5273987128115316072017-05-31T21:21:11.314-07:002017-05-31T21:21:11.314-07:00I almost ignored that but I saw my name, so it was...I almost ignored that but I saw my name, so it was hard... Stardusty Psyche said:<br />"<i>--Have you been listening to Sam Harris podcasts again?</i>"<br />Interestingly enough, I am doing that right now! But it's not like it's a surprise, I specifically linked to one of his podcast... what's wrong with that?<br /><br />"<i>" To be frank, I did not read everything here. (Well, I skipped SP's...)"<br />--Oooouch..this time the hurtin won't heal!</i>"<br />You know why I purposely ignore what you write. But you don't care, that's the problem. So keep being a sarcastic smartass if you want. It doesn't matter... Anyway, you did bring up 1 interesting thing:<br /><br />"<i>I discussed that very subject May 30, 2017 4:20 PM<br />[...]<br />This is objective only in the sense of postulating foundational positions and postulating methods of analysis and then objectively applying the postulates of process to the postulates of principles to arrive at judgements.<br /><br />This is a very limited and narrow and conditional sense of the word "objective". One may assert that an objective standard has been established, but since this standard is founded on postulates of principle and process the conclusions are not universally objective, rather, only objective within the narrow postulated system.</i>"<br /><br />You should really listen to the podcast with Jordan Peterson, because this is what he is doing too. You have this notion of micro-objectivity, yet reject the broader objectivity. It's inconsistent.<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19777762445712291152017-05-31T21:09:04.940-07:002017-05-31T21:09:04.940-07:00Chad Handley said...
SP "Laws are made by...Chad Handley said...<br /><br />SP "Laws are made by consensus, no moral absolutes needed."<br /><br />" And if the consensus reached is a law mandating that we put every Jewish man, woman, and child into ovens and use their melted skin to make soap and lampshades, you would be fine with that?"<br />--That would be counter to my personal sense of ought.<br /><br />" With no moral absolutes, surely you'd agree that no consensus is inherently better than any others. "<br />--Not logically provably so. On the postulate that egalitarian human flourishing is good then we could make judgements about which consensus is better, but since our judgments would be based on a non-provable postulate our conclusions would not be provably true.<br /><br />"The above consensus would be bad for Jewish people but great for people who like soap and lampshades made out of dead human skin. And we have no reason to prefer the desires of Jewish people who would like to live over the desires of people who like dead skin lamps."<br />--Ok, sounds like an argument from emotion, or personal incredulity, or perhaps not an argument at all, just an expression of your feelings.<br /><br /><br /> May 31, 2017 12:11 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90871132020164791982017-05-31T21:02:49.182-07:002017-05-31T21:02:49.182-07:00Rasmus Møller said...
" 2cents for a demo...Rasmus Møller said...<br /><br />" 2cents for a demonstrably absolute Good : Being itself."<br />--You mean existence, or to exist, or the fact I exist? How is that demonstrably good?<br /><br />" Evil is a lack or imperfection in Being; "<br />--How does evil make one less existent?<br /><br />"Goodness is Being perfected."<br />--Perfect what? How do you define perfection? What is your standard of perfection?<br /><br />I think you have some notions or feelings about these things, but I don't see any demonstration of an absolute good or evil in your words.<br /><br /><br /> May 31, 2017 8:08 AMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24239432848883908112017-05-31T18:58:58.419-07:002017-05-31T18:58:58.419-07:00I gotta go with Legion on this one. There's a ...I gotta go with Legion on this one. <a href="http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/2016/05/implications.html" rel="nofollow">There's a great posting</a> that's relevant to this issue, over on Iliocentrism.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66802341241598628102017-05-31T18:37:50.017-07:002017-05-31T18:37:50.017-07:00" If you believe that the universe is all the..."<i> If you believe that the universe is all there is, then it makes sense to believe the universe has no purpose and that life has no purpose, and that morality is nothing more than behavioral preference caused by evolution as a social species. I don't see it being possible for an atheist or a Christian to convince the other of any moral model without there first being a religious conversion or loss of belief.</i>"<br /><br />That's absurd for 2 reasons.<br />1) You know of Atheists who agree there is objective truths and morality. It was discussed here, on the web by prominent philosophers, and for centuries by our ancestors.<br />2) If God exists, we can argue that he is deciding what moral model to follow, making morality a preference, but that of one person; or God does not decide because there is such a thing as objective moral truths, and we are back to 1)<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19714637808406324002017-05-31T18:22:29.586-07:002017-05-31T18:22:29.586-07:00Stardusty: "We categorize those differences....Stardusty: "We categorize those differences. At base those are all collections of fundamental particles/fields interacting with each other as they do, with no knowledge of any larger organizational structure or any purpose in doing what they do."<br /><br />And that's why I object to taking things down to that level for every occasion - you lose the ability to determine the difference between a puddle, which was not formed with intent, and a pair of glasses, which were built with intent and thus have a purpose. <br /><br />As to how this relates to morality, it's the reason I don't find the subject at all profitable - if you believe God created the universe, it makes sense to believe the universe has purpose, that life has purpose, and that there could/would be moral parameters that are objective based on the nature of the creator. If you believe that the universe is all there is, then it makes sense to believe the universe has no purpose and that life has no purpose, and that morality is nothing more than behavioral preference caused by evolution as a social species. I don't see it being possible for an atheist or a Christian to convince the other of any moral model without there first being a religious conversion or loss of belief. <br /><br />Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29765692789838487362017-05-31T12:20:17.237-07:002017-05-31T12:20:17.237-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Screwtape Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13874779097608201662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27424834899522286952017-05-31T12:11:00.221-07:002017-05-31T12:11:00.221-07:00"Laws are made by consensus, no moral absolut..."Laws are made by consensus, no moral absolutes needed."<br /><br />And if the consensus reached is a law mandating that we put every Jewish man, woman, and child into ovens and use their melted skin to make soap and lampshades, you would be fine with that?<br /><br />With no moral absolutes, surely you'd agree that no consensus is inherently better than any others. The above consensus would be bad for Jewish people but great for people who like soap and lampshades made out of dead human skin. And we have no reason to prefer the desires of Jewish people who would like to live over the desires of people who like dead skin lamps.Screwtape Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13874779097608201662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5459365738833271702017-05-31T10:18:24.087-07:002017-05-31T10:18:24.087-07:00Despite the constant negative postings here kovfef...Despite the constant negative postings here kovfefeStarhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-456074891143430082017-05-31T08:08:26.027-07:002017-05-31T08:08:26.027-07:002cents for a demonstrably absolute Good : Being it...2cents for a demonstrably absolute Good : Being itself.<br /><br />Evil is a lack or imperfection in Being; Goodness is Being perfected.<br /><br />Loosely from Aquinas.Rasmus Møllerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15814093818995170882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72035832179887019452017-05-31T07:24:01.203-07:002017-05-31T07:24:01.203-07:00--What is the probability that you will submit an ...--What is the probability that you will submit an on-topic, thoughtful, well reasoned post here?<br /><br /><br /><b>That's really uncalled for. two a week I put up one post per day advertising my blog piece, Baht's because I put up new posts on those days,every other post I make is on topic. I don't think twice a week is to much to ask.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25960775088132931682017-05-31T07:11:47.982-07:002017-05-31T07:11:47.982-07:00Joe Hinman said...
" My article on Mewtac...Joe Hinman said...<br /><br />" My article on Mewtacorck';s God is the first anti-Bayes article I wrote that led tom first Debate with Jeff Lowder. I'm not really agaisnt Bayes just against claiming to calculate the probability of God.<br /><br /> Can Bayes Calculate Probability of God? No Dice!"<br />--What is the probability that you will submit an on-topic, thoughtful, well reasoned post here?<br /><br />Based on your priors above it looks to be dang near zero. <br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.com