[split from] Atheist because
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2014, 06:44 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 06:40 PM)djhall Wrote:  However, if someone thinks only they have value, or they are the supreme value, so rape is right, then they have very conflicting moral axioms than yours, and we tend to call that evil. I can't help you prove your axioms over theirs. That is what maxes axioms axioms... you can't prove them, you just have to accept them as true and take a stand for them.

Indeed.

Moral reasoning in humans - which in itself exists as a statistical distribution in terms of applicability, only somewhat cross-indexed with things like empathy - is predicated on just such axioms, which demonstrate inevitable statistical variation in populations.

They are mostly based on similar concepts - reciprocity, tribalism, self-perpetuation, and such - but that leaves a heck of a lot of room for variation.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
09-05-2014, 06:49 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 06:39 PM)Dom Wrote:  Morality is based on the instinct for self preservation as well as the instinct preservation of the species.

That in and of itself creates conflict situations.

I agree. And I think that is somewhat hardwired into our "wetware" or sociobiology, which is where the common instinctive moral intuitions and convictions come from.

However, I also think we need to logically consider, codify, and evaluate those axioms and our moral reasoning and language. Otherwise we tend to make subjective errors due to human subjectivity, bias, confirmation bias, logical fallacies, etc. without realizing we are doing it if we just operate on instinct and "feels right to me" morality.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 06:49 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 05:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 05:47 PM)djhall Wrote:  Jeremy, the resistance doesn't lie with us. There is one very simple difference that you can't seem to grasp no matter how often it is pointed out to you. I've highlighted it in bold for you in your own arguments.

Our moral intuition and convictions can't be proven to actually be objective or proven to be reliable indicators for objective morality or what is objectively right or wrong. We recognize everything you say as more than mere preference or moral / cultural relativism, but less than proven objectivity, and carry on as best we can. Where does this come from? Our biology from evolution? Maybe. Our biology from creation? Perhaps. Either way, that argument is interesting mostly theologically and philosophically speaking, as we all operate in reality off the same phenomena and only attribute the cause to different things.

You, presumably attribute the cause to god. We don't. As a result, you call it objective. We aren't willing to go quite that far. But from there, we proceed down the same path. You are the only person here that is uncomfortable with that. You are the only one that feels if we don't attribute the experience to god then we must be forced into cultural relativism. But we can, and do, manage to get along just fine not adopting cultural relativism, even if only by declaring the experience to be a moral axiom we are willing to fight to defend.

Why do you try to find defenders of moral relativism where none exist, just so you can fight against them? So what that we don't call it objective? So what if we don't attribute it to god? Why can't we attribute it to sociobiological evolution + moral axioms + objective logic and reasoning and not have it still be "objective morality" in function if not in name?

So you are not a moral relativist or a moral objectivist.

Pray tell, what are you then?

Again, what the hell, were you not the one defending rape in the bible with moral relativism?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
09-05-2014, 06:56 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 06:40 PM)djhall Wrote:  So, assuming you have moral axioms like, ...

Aye, there's the rub. Axioms are generally presumed to be self-evident and incontrovertible. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "moral axiom".

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 06:59 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 06:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 06:40 PM)djhall Wrote:  So, assuming you have moral axioms like, ...

Aye, there's the rub. Axioms are generally presumed to be self-evident and incontrovertible. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "moral axiom".

Yes, dipshits love to blather on about how their personal subjective premises are "axiomatic".

That's why I prefer to speak of moral precepts. If they exhibit innate statistical variation, they sure as hell aren't axioms.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
09-05-2014, 07:05 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2014 07:10 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 06:49 PM)djhall Wrote:  However, I also think we need to logically consider, codify, ...

Don't be a dick sums it up nicely. Where that comes from? Yeah we've been genetically engineered by evolution to be societal and communal. It's in our genes. Don't be a dick.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
09-05-2014, 07:08 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 06:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 06:40 PM)djhall Wrote:  So, assuming you have moral axioms like, ...
Aye, there's the rub. Axioms are generally presumed to be self-evident and incontrovertible. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "moral axiom".

I agree. Which is where the subjective/objective arguments get rolling. Some hold the truth of god, and further of their god, as axiomatic. I give them that... it is their right to believe so. But don't argue that my axioms are subjective and yours are objective. Your belief, no matter how certainly held, is NOT OBJECTIVELY CERTAIN, and you don't get to claim special pleading to make it so. You might be wrong, and so may I, and we can't prove we are the ones who know objective truth and right for everyone else. At the same time, we have to live together as best we can, so conflict is inevitable.

I incorporate that concept as the very heart of my own moral philosophy:

IF the most objective truth we can prove about moral claims is that most people's claims to objective moral truths are uncertain,
THEN no point of view, including one's own, should be presumed by its adherents to be right for others who disagree with it, or should be imposed on others who disagree with it against their wills,
AND we should allow them to pursue their purposes, desires, and happiness without interference and without imposing our own purposes, wills, or desires upon them or forcing them to do what we want against their wills.
THEREFORE, competing moral claims, principles, and standards can be objectively evaluated according to the degree to which they sustain this ideal to the greatest extent possible, even when it is impossible to not violate this ideal no matter what we do.

If you think about the kinds of moral positions that would be supported from this objective principle, we actually can argue that things like rape are objectively wrong. We can objectively demonstrate that moral claims are uncertain and unlikely to be objective moral truths. The most objectively neutral course of action is therefore to resist imposing our wills on others to the greatest extent possible. We can use that principle to objectively compare the claims that raping a woman most closely sustains that ideal standard or refraining from raping a woman most closely sustains that ideal standard. The woman who claims the "right" to go about her day without being raped is not attempting to impose her will on a rapist, and a rapist need not even exist for her to carry out that plan of action. The rapist, however, requires the existence of the woman to be raped, and the imposition of his will over her objection, in order to carry out his plan of action. Therefore, we can fairly clearly determine that the woman is objectively right, and the rapist is objectively wrong, in adhering to objective principles in a world where objective truths are uncertain.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djhall's post
09-05-2014, 07:16 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 06:59 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 06:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Aye, there's the rub. Axioms are generally presumed to be self-evident and incontrovertible. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "moral axiom".

Yes, dipshits love to blather on about how their personal subjective premises are "axiomatic".

That's why I prefer to speak of moral precepts. If they exhibit innate statistical variation, they sure as hell aren't axioms.

cjlr, I'm just an average semi-evolved ape trying to find something more than just my own personal self-interest as a way to make moral evaluations in a world without a father deity to guide the way. I use the word axiom only because, as I understand it, it is something you have to accept without any further proof in order to get anywhere. I don't claim to know the answers, I'm just searching for knowledge and hoping that other people have valuable insights of their own to share.

I don't post what I do to try to educate the forum with my brilliance, I do it because I hope you have thought about the subject too and can point out ways to improve my knowledge, my thoughts, my outlook. Precepts may well be what I am trying to say. I will take that and see how I can use it to improve my ideas. If there is more you think I can learn from you, please share as I honestly do try to learn from others.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 07:20 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2014 07:27 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:08 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 06:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Aye, there's the rub. Axioms are generally presumed to be self-evident and incontrovertible. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "moral axiom".

I agree. Which is where the subjective/objective arguments get rolling. Some hold the truth of god, and further of their god, as axiomatic. I give them that... it is their right to believe so. But don't argue that my axioms are subjective and yours are objective. Your belief, no matter how certainly held, is NOT OBJECTIVELY CERTAIN, and you don't get to claim special pleading to make it so. You might be wrong, and so may I, and we can't prove we are the ones who know objective truth and right for everyone else. At the same time, we have to live together as best we can, so conflict is inevitable.

I incorporate that concept as the very heart of my own moral philosophy:

IF the most objective truth we can prove about moral claims is that most people's claims to objective moral truths are uncertain,
THEN no point of view, including one's own, should be presumed by its adherents to be right for others who disagree with it, or should be imposed on others who disagree with it against their wills,
AND we should allow them to pursue their purposes, desires, and happiness without interference and without imposing our own purposes, wills, or desires upon them or forcing them to do what we want against their wills.
THEREFORE, competing moral claims, principles, and standards can be objectively evaluated according to the degree to which they sustain this ideal to the greatest extent possible, even when it is impossible to not violate this ideal no matter what we do.

If you think about the kinds of moral positions that would be supported from this objective principle, we actually can argue that things like rape are objectively wrong. We can objectively demonstrate that moral claims are uncertain and unlikely to be objective moral truths. The most objectively neutral course of action is therefore to resist imposing our wills on others to the greatest extent possible. We can use that principle to objectively compare the claims that raping a woman most closely sustains that ideal standard or refraining from raping a woman most closely sustains that ideal standard. The woman who claims the "right" to go about her day without being raped is not attempting to impose her will on a rapist, and a rapist need not even exist for her to carry out that plan of action. The rapist, however, requires the existence of the woman to be raped, and the imposition of his will over her objection, in order to carry out his plan of action. Therefore, we can fairly clearly determine that the woman is objectively right, and the rapist is objectively wrong, in adhering to objective principles in a world where objective truths are uncertain.

You wrote all of that to say that objective really means "ideal".

You then appeal to this "ideal standard" as if all people should live by it.

Get with it man. Its inescapable. Morality is either totally a matter of personal taste or its a matter of fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 07:23 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:16 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 06:59 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, dipshits love to blather on about how their personal subjective premises are "axiomatic".

That's why I prefer to speak of moral precepts. If they exhibit innate statistical variation, they sure as hell aren't axioms.

cjlr, I'm just an average semi-evolved ape trying to find something more than just my own personal self-interest as a way to make moral evaluations in a world without a father deity to guide the way. I use the word axiom only because, as I understand it, it is something you have to accept without any further proof in order to get anywhere. I don't claim to know the answers, I'm just searching for knowledge and hoping that other people have valuable insights of their own to share.

Oh, please don't take that the wrong way. I certainly meant to make no comment directly on what you've said, which I've found interesting and worthwhile.

My comment was merely an oblique reference to some... special individuals I've had prior misfortune to have attempted to engage in dialogue.

(09-05-2014 07:16 PM)djhall Wrote:  I don't post what I do to try to educate the forum with my brilliance, I do it because I hope you have thought about the subject too and can point out ways to improve my knowledge, my thoughts, my outlook. Precepts may well be what I am trying to say. I will take that and see how I can use it to improve my ideas. If there is more you think I can learn from you, please share as I honestly do try to learn from others.

See above. Snark aside, I was agreeing with you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: