Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2016, 02:14 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(15-12-2016 02:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He actually agrees with you. He's just too stupid to get that.

I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, but as always with Tommy, he spends most of his time sneering at other people and very little actually proposing something concrete of his own, so I haven't the foggiest clue what he really thinks, only that he thinks he's qualified to pontificate at us.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
15-12-2016, 04:02 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(15-12-2016 08:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If someone develops a clear definition of what they mean by wrong, in a way that’s evident to you what they personally mean by it when they use it in a variety of different context, will this make you reconsider your moral nihilism? Or would this be irrelevant.
Fair enough question.

People do define wrong, in different ways, there is no universal definition.
For some people it is based on their empathy, their conscious.
For some it is based on some premise i.e. golden rule or minimise harm, maximise happiness. For religious folk it is based on whatever their spiritual leaders tell them (under the guise of interpretation of scripture or some special devine revelation to them only). Or perhaps some people subsribe to Kant's Imperitives.

However you decide to come up with your definition of right and wrong, that is not a universally accepted approach. It is a morality that applies to you only because you have chosen to believe in it. This has no impact on my own position of Moral Nihilist.

(15-12-2016 08:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What most theists engaging in arguments about morality, tend to recognize is that atheists, particularly non-moral nihilist, is that they talk out of both sides of their mouth. Something Matt will likely agree with me on here.

While they attempt to hold that morality is subjective on one end, they continue to speak of morality as if it’s not subjective, speak of moral progressions, higher morality, moral obligations, responsibilities etc…
Yes, I agree with this, I brought this point up in my post also.

But, perhaps it comes down to a definition of what people who associate as relative moralists have. I suppose there are many, many different definitions held by various individuals within this group. It doesn't make sense to say that they all are holding this conflicting view or holding morality to be relative and making public claims as to what is immoral.

(15-12-2016 08:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact even here, where a number of atheists confess to moral subjectivism, they also claim it’s a special kind of “subjective”, that it’s not a matter of personal opinions, or feelings.
Sure, it's not just at a whim. They hold some value judgments e.g. they might value happiness and value against suffering. So their own personal moral landscape is built around that. Basically their own empathy of others.
They can't just switch their own empathy on and off at a whim. It is something that they have developed over a life time, a belief and perhaps some physical aspect too. Much like theists religious beliefs, they have developed these over a life time and cannot simply shut off at a whim.

(15-12-2016 08:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The theist is just chasing the atheist to acknowledge, that when they speak of subjective morality, that at best, they’re speaking of their own personal likes and dislikes, like when speaking of food, and that they have no actual foundation to pass moral judgments.
A theist taking this approach is one who does not listen, this theist is either full of arrogance and pride or is just an immature troll.
A theist on an atheist forum would be best to listen and try to understand others rather than to preach this stuff to them.
Liking Pepsi over Coke is different because there is no empathy in play, no suffering. A person holding onto subjective morality might be personalising their stance based on their own empathy and ideas of suffering.

(15-12-2016 08:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or the theist is just chasing the atheist to the only reasonably position remaining for them, and that’s moral nihilism.
Again, as I say, the best approach is to learn rather than to teach, to listen rather than to preach. Your goal would be best to understand the other side rather than to lead them towards moral nihilism.
If they are interested in moral nihilism then they might ask questions. If they are not asking questions then they are not interested. You, being a theist and not a moral nihilst, are not the right person to teach people what a moral nihilist is, your own idea is a strawman.

(15-12-2016 08:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And as I recall, that’s exactly what happened to you. You subscribed to some form of humanistic moral beliefs, only to recognize their incoherency when arguing over morality with theists. Which then led you to accept moral nihilism as the only defensible position.
I was conditioned from a young age to accept that morality is a thing. As I grew older and learnt more about the world and read various articles I became aware that morality is something to be questions rather than taken for granted. Through introspection, research and active participation with people with varying views I came to the conclusion that morality is not discoverable, is not defensible, through further introspection I discovered there is a plausable alternative, thus I arrived and my current postion. By listening and thinking, not from trying to preach to others, not from being defensive of my own position.


(15-12-2016 08:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And my main issue with moral nihilist, is that they don’t take their reasoning far enough
Good for you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
15-12-2016, 05:08 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(15-12-2016 04:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It doesn't make sense to say that they all are holding this conflicting view or holding morality to be relative and making public claims as to what is immoral.

If when they claim that slavery, rape is immoral, they don’t recognize that they’re just stating their own personal likes and dislikes, their own personal subjective preferences, they’re holding conflicting views of morality. If their idea of “subjective” means something different, than pretty much every other use of the term, such as when we refer to music, their views are conflicting and contradictory.

Quote:Sure, it's not just at a whim. They hold some value judgments e.g. they might value happiness and value against suffering. So their own personal moral landscape is built around that. Basically their own empathy of others.
They can't just switch their own empathy on and off at a whim. It is something that they have developed over a life time, a belief and perhaps some physical aspect too. Much like theists religious beliefs, they have developed these over a life time and cannot simply shut off at a whim

Empathy like any other strong emotions has the tendency to delude us. Someone’s empathy be might so strongly impacted by the thought genocide, or rape, that they feel there’s a real obligation to do something about it, a real moral law that prohibits it. The everyday moral landscape is paved by a variety of delusions and false beliefs, contributed to by the way certain things strongly resonant with us, and thousand of years of religious and cultural traditions that have polluted us.

Quote:Again, as I say, the best approach is to learn rather than to teach, to listen rather than to preach. Your goal would be best to understand the other side rather than to lead them towards moral nihilism.

No, that’s the best approach. It might be more coddling, but necessarily the best approach. In situations where I’m dealing with a topic where another individual likely knows considerably more than I do, the learning, student-teacher approach might be appropriate. Such as if you were a computer programer, and I was curious about computer programing this approach might be best. But to hear the endless gibberish of individuals who haven’t clearly thought the topic though, would be more painful than hearing nails scrape against a chalk board.

The best approach for me, in topics, that I know a considerable amount about, is to challenge people’s assumptions, point out the problems and inconsistencies, drive it incessantly until the gears in their head start moving, in an attempt to resolve it. This approach works considerably well, particularly in areas were people's own personal resentments aren’t on high alert. One area that I know a great deal about is healthcare, and often when I encounter those seeking to repeal Obamacare, my approach is to get them to work through, the problems they seek to resolve, to see the problems created by a variety of solutions they think might work, etc.. As they start to see the problems, they start to see the larger picture they’re apart of. A great deal can be gleamed about a persons views, when they’re force to deal with the problem posed by them. I can’t see this approach is as effective when dealing with atheists, but that seems to primarily because emotions run high, and the baggage of their religious histories are piled to the top.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
15-12-2016, 05:27 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(15-12-2016 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The best approach for me, in topics, that I know a considerable amount about, is to challenge people’s assumptions, point out the problems and inconsistencies, drive it incessantly until the gears in their head start moving, in an attempt to resolve it.
What is in it for you?

Are you looking for confirmation that you are right?
Would changing a person's opinion to your way, prove to yourself that you are right?
Why do you take it upon yourself to come here and preach, really, so what if others thinking is wrong(in your opinion)?


(15-12-2016 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  This approach works considerably well, particularly in areas were people's own personal resentments aren’t on high alert. One area that I know a great deal about is healthcare
The problem here is that you have no respect and no credibility on this form, and in particular with regards to morality discussions.
Firstly, you are a theist, so presumably you get your morals handed to you by your spiritual leaders, you believe whatever they tell you. You are not a thinker.

You have shown often that you misunderstand the position of the people that you are calling out as wrong. Why would they listen to you?
You tell them their morals are at a whim, but don't listen when they tell you they are not.
You tell them their morals are much like choosing a favourate song but don't listen when people tell you their morality is different to that.

You mischaracterise, misrepresent and don't listen when people open up and try to explain to you their viewpoint. You don't listen to them, you don't respect them, you don't understand them or their veiwpoint hence there is no quality to your assessment that they are wrong. You are making a judgement on a strawman position and are not addressing the real matter.

For you to offer a critique on a position, you must first learn what that position is. At the moment you appear like a person criticising evolution by saying "well how come a cat doesn't give birth to a dog then?". It completely misses the point, so why would people listen to what you are saying?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Stevil's post
15-12-2016, 06:44 PM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2016 06:55 PM by Tomasia.)
Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(15-12-2016 05:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What is in it for you?

Are you looking for confirmation that you are right?

Sure much of it is driven by a desire to confirm a variety of suspicions, and I have a considerable amount of suspicions. not just about atheists, but about being human in general. This might not be the ideal place to confirm them, but it is the most readily available at the drop of a hat.

Quote:Would changing a person's opinion to your way, prove to yourself that you are right?

No it wouldn’t prove it, convincing someone that their strongly held positions are wrong, seems a fool's errand in my opinion. And if one person changed their view it wouldn’t prove that my views are right either. I’m more interested, at least here where convincing is off the table, in dissecting those views into a multitude of pieces, to have a clearer view of the things im suspicious about.

Quote:Why do you take it upon yourself to come here and preach, really, so what if others thinking is wrong(in your opinion)?

I’m not interested in preaching, if I were I might be more concerned about how I come off, respect, and rep points. My participation here is entirely selfish, purely for the service of engaging my suspicions.

Quote:The problem here is that you have no respect and no credibility on this form, and in particular with regards to morality discussions.

I guess this would matter for those concerned about how much credibility and respect they derive from strangers on the internet. Perhaps that’s more you than me, lol. At the same time I don’t go out of my way to insult people, but I’m also not looking to win a popularity contest.

Quote:Firstly, you are a theist, so presumably you get your morals handed to you by your spiritual leaders, you believe whatever they tell you. You are not a thinker.

No, I’m a biological creature, I get much of my morality, from the same place that every other biological creatures, like chimps, and dogs get their moral like behaviors from. And judging that I don’t live in some closed off space somewhere, I’m also a victim of variety of cultural, social, political, and environmental forces similar to variety of other human beings religious and non-religious. All of which shape my moral thinking, and who I am.

Quote:You tell them their morals are at a whim, but don't listen when they tell you they are not.

That’s interesting coming from you. You’re a moral nihilist, but you don’t think morality is a matter of personal opinion, feelings, or tastes or in other words “subjective”? If you do, are you equally not listening when they protest otherwise?

Quote:For you to offer a critique on a position, you must first learn what that position is. At the moment you appear like a person criticising evolution by saying "well how come a cat doesn't give birth to a dog then?". It completely misses the point, so why would people listen to what you are saying?

Except we’re not talking about evolution, but a position in your own words is not indefensible. But this is an interesting turn of events, I’m curious as one of the resident moral nihilist on the forum, where my views differ on moral subjectivism from yours. If our conclusions on this are similar, then who gives a shit how we came to them, whether you got there by being a patient listener, by friendly conversations, or by bulldozing the place.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2016, 08:56 PM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2016 09:48 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(15-12-2016 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The best approach for me, in topics, that I know a considerable amount about, is to challenge people’s assumptions, point out the problems and inconsistencies, drive it incessantly until the gears in their head start moving, in an attempt to resolve it.

Really ? So far, you've never shown you know much of anything about any topic.
Do you actually think your "prestigious Ph.D. program" (LOL) taught you anything ?

You are seriously delusional.
So when you told us you were here to learn, you were lying ? I see that the basis of YOUR judgments is not any sort of morality.
You don't have "suspicions" about atheists. You can't stop yourself from insulting them as a group, constantly. You KNOW you think you are right about people,
whom you don't even know, and you prove that all the time.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2016, 09:57 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(15-12-2016 06:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:You tell them their morals are at a whim, but don't listen when they tell you they are not.

That’s interesting coming from you. You’re a moral nihilist, but you don’t think morality is a matter of personal opinion, feelings, or tastes or in other words “subjective”? If you do, are you equally not listening when they protest otherwise?
I just don't think that it is possible to come up with a usable and consistent definition of morality. Sure a person can call the self imposed rules or guides they adhere to as their moral code. Great for them, but I personally don't consider that to be anything other than just made up rules and guides. As many have suggested, morals implies a collection of people rather than a single person. Each person holding onto their own personal moral beliefs and imagining that it has some relevance to their soeciety and others in their society, doesn't really make any sense to me.It has no value beyond the beholder. If that is what morality is to them then great for them, but it's not what I consider to be morality.

I have tried to get these people to help me define what morality is, but we got nowhere other than arguing about it. People like their morality, but they don't want to define it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2016, 10:57 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(15-12-2016 09:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I just don't think that it is possible to come up with a usable and consistent definition of morality.

And...? You already indicated that your moral nihilism is not dependent on a lack of a consistent definition. Someone may come up with a particular clear, and consistent definition of that they mean by morality, and have a group of people that agree with them, and this would have no bearing on validity of moral nihilism.

Quote:Sure a person can call the self imposed rules or guides they adhere to as their moral code. Great for them, but I personally don't consider that to be anything other than just made up rules and guides. As many have suggested, morals implies a collection of people rather than a single person.


Oh, okay if an individual person has their own self imposed rules and guides and calls it their moral code, it's just a bunch of made up rules and guides. But if a collection of people have the same self imposed rules and guides, it's no longer made up rules and guides?

It should also be noted that, cultures (collections of people) often share a variety of personal opinions and tastes, like standards of beauty, food, music, etc.... different than other cultures.

Quote:Each person holding onto their own personal moral beliefs and imagining that it has some relevance to their soeciety and others in their society, doesn't really make any sense to me.It has no value beyond the beholder. If that is what morality is to them then great for them, but it's not what I consider to be morality.

You're not very clear here, whats the difference between one's personal moral beliefs, and the moral beliefs held by a collective group of people, other than it's held a by more than one person here? Anymore so than if one person liked Nickelback, or a group of people did? You seem to put a lot of stock here into the idea of a group over an individual, though the relevance of this point is not particularly clear?


Quote:I have tried to get these people to help me define what morality is, but we got nowhere other than arguing about it. People like their morality, but they don't want to define it.

You tried to get individual people to define their own person moral rules, and guidelines? Or you tried to get a collection of people to define their moral rules and guidelines that they share?

Are groups anymore successful in this, than individuals?

You seem to suggest that you listen and learned from them, while I didn't. And that you have a better understanding of their position than I do. You also took offense to the suggestions that these rules and guidelines they hold, are subjectively based (based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.). Yet here you are pointing out that these same people that you argue with, don't want to define morality for you.

So far you haven't shown why their supposed rules and guidelines are not subjectively based, other than an inane appeal to groups, rather than individuals.

Perhaps you were just defending the honor of your friends here, the esteem of your homeboys, but lack an actual defense?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2016, 11:18 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(15-12-2016 08:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So when you told us you were here to learn, you were lying ?

Some times i put my dog in scenarios that he has to figure out, problems he has to work his way out of. You can learn something about his, and animal behavior in general by observing how he goes about resolving this.

Quote:I see that the basis of YOUR judgments is not any sort of morality.
You don't have "suspicions" about atheists. You can't stop yourself from insulting them as a group, constantly. You KNOW you think you are right about people,
whom you don't even know, and you prove that all the time.

Apparently the biggest insult here, is that I'm often confident in my opinions of people whom I don't personally know. But the thing is I know a lot of people personally and in depth, I read a variety of studies regarding human behavior, animal behavior etc... though I don't know you personally. You're not unique, you're just like every other human being, and random joe. The same rules apply to you as everyone else. You're not some unicorn, but like any other dog, or chimpanzee, whose behaviors and thoughts we can understand from observations of other dogs and chimps. You're just as much a biological creature, as me and everyone else, a victim to the variety of external forces, cultural, environmental, etc.. as countless others.

Imagine a dog owner, complaining that the behaviorist he hired doesn't understand his dogs behavior, because he doesn't know him personally, As if their dog operates differently than billions of other dogs. This would be silly. Humans on other hand like to imagine themselves as more privileged, and so individually unique, as some mystery.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 01:02 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(15-12-2016 09:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  ...
I have tried to get these people to help me define what morality is, but we got nowhere other than arguing about it. People like their morality, but they don't want to define it.

Did I miss that? Which thread?

Here's mine:

Morality is ... a chemically derived, dialectically influenced, cognitive baseline of principles.

Smartass

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: