[split from] Atheist because
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2014, 05:50 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 05:47 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 04:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Our moral intuition and convictions as moral creatures TELLS us that rape is objectively wrong. We do not need an argument to prove to us that rape is wrong. We are not waiting for some evidence to be brought forth to convince us that killing atheists because they are atheists is just flat wrong regardless of what people think.

I do not need someone to prove to me that raping children is wrong. I intuitively know it is wrong. Everything that I am as a human being cries out to me to fight against it.

To hell with the few sick people that think it is ok! They are wrong and I am right. They are just as wrong as if the had said two and two were five.

I know, you know it, and everyone here knows it. That is my whole point. And if we know it and moral relativism says that we are wrong then we need to ABANDON moral relativism in favor of a view that is more in agreement with our moral experiences.

Moral relativism is indefensible except for the person who does not like the idea of being morally obligated.

That is where the resistance lies.

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?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 05:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So you are not a moral relativist or a moral objectivist.

Pray tell, what are you then?

Wetware.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mathilda's post
09-05-2014, 05:56 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 06:08 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2014 06:12 PM by Hughsie.)
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 05:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I do not think that a rapist's sincere convictions that rape is just awesome makes his view right.

I think he is still wrong even if he is persuaded that women are just objects for abusing.

He can be the most persuaded, most convinced, most sincere rapist in all of human history and can tell me that raping women is his right and that he can do it all he wants.

I still maintain that he is wrong, that he is deserving of punishment and that he has failed in his moral obligation to treat a woman with dignity and respect.

I do not care if the whole world thought rape was just cool and fine and dandy. I appeal to a Law higher than all of the opinions of man. I appeal to the Moral Standard by which all are held accountable to which says somethings are simply wrong and thats the end of the discussion.

I do not make apologies or spew out some ridiculous absurd statement like: "Well whats true for you is true for you...." or "if its right to you then its right"....

No no no.... I know that someone who rapes thinks its just fine and dandy, but he has still violated a woman who SHOULD NOT have been violated.

Laws like speed limits are in place to protect people driving on the roads. Period.

If one has a habit of speeding and has no regard for the safety of others or the law, then if he is stopped he is deserving of a ticket.

If one has a habit of trying to obey the speed limit and is concerned for the safety of those on the road with him and he happens to get caught going a couple miles over the speed limit and he gets pulled over, a cop can pull up his MVR and see if this is something habitual or not. He then can use discretion in writing a warning. The person has broken the law no doubt, but in cases like this Police are actually instructed to use their discretion and good judgment. A lot of time it depends on how honest and civil the person is. The person may get a ticket and that is just because when you get in a car and drive you are responsible for knowing the penalties for breaking the law if you break it.

Ah, I was misunderstanding you. I thought you were saying that our morals had to come from a source (such as the bible), whereas you are actually saying that they are innately within us. Would that be more correct?

Hmm, this is quite thought provoking.

I agree that rape is wrong, regardless of a person's views/opinions/convictions. I have to admit though that such a statement does seem to be more consistent with objective morality than subjective morality. However, the concept of objective morality without a being to dictate it seems rather conflicting. Perhaps I view myself as the objective moral decider without realising it, making my morals superior to those that conflict with my own?

OK, as no-one seems to wanna give Jeremy any good answers on this could someone answer this for me? If I think rape is always wrong, regardless of the views of the rapist (or his society, or his law-givers) then I must be thinking in some way that my own views are superior. I'm not saying there is an objective moral decider, but I do seem to be saying that certain things are objectively wrong regardless what anyone else thinks. How does that square off with my view that morality is subjective? I seriously can't think of an answer to this at the moment. Anyone care to help me out here?

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 06:09 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 05:54 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 05:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So you are not a moral relativist or a moral objectivist.

Pray tell, what are you then?

Wetware.

^That. Thumbsup

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
09-05-2014, 06:11 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2014 06:18 PM by djhall.)
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 05:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So you are not a moral relativist or a moral objectivist.

Pray tell, what are you then?

I am, and I believe most of the others here are too, someone with the exact same experience as you.

You can't prove god exists, but you attribute this experience to him, use that presumption to declare your experience representative of an objective truth, and then use that to deny responsibility for the consequences of that decision.

We can't prove god exists, so we don't attribute that experience to him, so we can't use that to declare our position representative of objective truth or use it to deny responsibility for the consequences of our decision. As a result, we have to put on our big boy pants, use reason, logic, empathy, sociology, science, medicine, philosophy, and intuition to make the best possible objective evaluation of moral axioms that we can, and make a choice. We must take a stand as to what we believe with our life, what we will support as our contribution to the human legacy, and what we are willing to defend, fight for, and die for, with our lives, without the security blanket of a god to pass the responsibility for that decision off to or the security blanket of a god that will give us extra lives when we sacrifice the only one we have for the principles and values we dedicate our lives to defending. And we had damned well better do a good job of it, and use that responsibility and power wisely, because this is all we have as the human race, there is no one to fix it if we make the wrong choice, if we take the wrong stand, or if we decide not to fight and or die for the goodness of future humans and the human race.

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
[+] 4 users Like djhall's post
09-05-2014, 06:18 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2014 06:29 PM by djhall.)
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 06:08 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Ah, I was misunderstanding you. I thought you were saying that our morals had to come from a source (such as the bible), whereas you are actually saying that they are innately within us. Would that be more correct?

Hmm, this is quite thought provoking.

I agree that rape is wrong, regardless of a person's views/opinions/convictions. I have to admit though that such a statement does seem to be more consistent with objective morality than subjective morality. However, the concept of objective morality without a being to dictate it seems rather conflicting. Perhaps I view myself as the objective moral decider without realising it, making my morals superior to those that conflict with my own?

OK, as no-one seems to wanna give Jeremy any good answers on this could someone answer this for me? If I think rape is always wrong, regardless of the views of the rapist (or his society, or his law-givers) then I must be thinking in some way that my own views are superior. I'm not saying there is an objective moral decider, but I do seem to be saying that certain things are objectively wrong regardless what anyone else thinks. How does that square off with my view that morality is subjective? I seriously can't think of an answer to this at the moment. Anyone care to help me out here?

Hugsie, I've wrestled with this question for a long time. I posted this in another thread that was locked, but I'd be interested in your thoughts, so I am copying it here. This is the best I have so far as an explanation for this phenomena.
---------------------------

For most people, morality is like pornography... “I shall not today attempt further to define; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it….”

I believe, even if we don't explicitly realize it, we are operating with learned frameworks of logic and reason based on one or more moral axioms. An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. The word comes from the Greek ἀξίωμα (āxīoma) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.' As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms.

As starting points that can't be further justified, these axioms would have to be very simple. "Human life has value", perhaps, or "I have value" and "What gives me value gives others value", or "we have equal value", or maybe just the golden rule. This isn't a finished product, it is just a rough outline of a process, so I'm sure generations of humans would debate and obsess over finding the simplest axioms possible.

From those axiomatic nuggets, objective ("not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts") reasoning and logic can be used to evaluate competing moral propositions in a search for the ideal moral framework. The Standard you argue we need is filled by the simplest possible moral axioms that form the base of the system.

AHA, you say! But how do you prove the Universally and Objectively Correct Axioms! You don't. You can't. But what if someone else holds "human suffering" or "I am the supreme value" as their axiom? Isn't that a problem? Well, yeah, but I'm not sure it is necessarily a "moral" problem anymore. If you are swimming in the ocean and are attacked by a shark, is it a moral problem? You have morals, but other than fighting back or giving up, what choice do you have and what difference does morality make? Might doesn't make right, but it does make what is. As much as possible we strive to obtain and maintain the "moral environment", but we live in a cold and amoral universe with no omnipotent god to make it alright, so at the very, very, very, end, I suppose we may be nothing more than the product of sociobiological moral evolution... survival of the fittest morals. If you don't have mutually beneficial morals, you fight among yourselves more, and you tend to get killed off by those of us with more mutually cooperative morals when we clash.

--------------------------------

To further expand on the concept:

I think when we say someone is morally wrong, we are saying the fundamental axioms are the same, or similar, but the logic or reasoning is flawed, subjectively skewed, or biased in their favor. Like people who thought slavery was okay because black people weren't really human, but owning an actual human slave would be wrong. Right premise, wrong conclusion, morally wrong.

When we say someone or something is evil, I believe we are really saying it is based on bad/wrong/conflicting axioms of human value. Human suffering is good, so torture is good. Uh, if you believe that, I find you evil (based on my moral axioms.) If you believe only you have value, so raping women is fine if you like it, regardless of their opinion, then I say you are evil.

As for the universally objectively provable right and wrong axioms? I don't know. I don't even know "objective" morality exists or could be proven if there is just subjective human experience. Are they just sociobiology and part of our brain wiring? Probably. All I know is that I am confident to my core that I am willing to take a stand for the ones I believe are "right", and I am willing to fight, kill, and die alongside others who have the same beliefs in order to defend a better vision for the human race, even if that means sacrificing the only life I will ever have, everything really, to make that the meaning of my life, the legacy of my existence, my contribution to humanity. Isn't that what really matters?? Is that, perhaps, even the meaning of life as an atheist?

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, 06:24 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2014 06:36 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 05:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So you are not a moral relativist or a moral objectivist.

Pray tell, what are you then?

I have been amoral ever since reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil some 3 decades ago now. Never hindered me from being a decent human being. No morality required.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
09-05-2014, 06:39 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 06:18 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 06:08 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Ah, I was misunderstanding you. I thought you were saying that our morals had to come from a source (such as the bible), whereas you are actually saying that they are innately within us. Would that be more correct?

Hmm, this is quite thought provoking.

I agree that rape is wrong, regardless of a person's views/opinions/convictions. I have to admit though that such a statement does seem to be more consistent with objective morality than subjective morality. However, the concept of objective morality without a being to dictate it seems rather conflicting. Perhaps I view myself as the objective moral decider without realising it, making my morals superior to those that conflict with my own?

OK, as no-one seems to wanna give Jeremy any good answers on this could someone answer this for me? If I think rape is always wrong, regardless of the views of the rapist (or his society, or his law-givers) then I must be thinking in some way that my own views are superior. I'm not saying there is an objective moral decider, but I do seem to be saying that certain things are objectively wrong regardless what anyone else thinks. How does that square off with my view that morality is subjective? I seriously can't think of an answer to this at the moment. Anyone care to help me out here?

Hugsie, I've wrestled with this question for a long time. I posted this in another thread that was locked, but I'd be interested in your thoughts, so I am copying it here. This is the best I have so far as an explanation for this phenomena.
---------------------------

For most people, morality is like pornography... “I shall not today attempt further to define; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it….”

I believe, even if we don't explicitly realize it, we are operating with learned frameworks of logic and reason based on one or more moral axioms. An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. The word comes from the Greek ἀξίωμα (āxīoma) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.' As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms.

As starting points that can't be further justified, these axioms would have to be very simple. "Human life has value", perhaps, or "I have value" and "What gives me value gives others value", or "we have equal value", or maybe just the golden rule. This isn't a finished product, it is just a rough outline of a process, so I'm sure generations of humans would debate and obsess over finding the simplest axioms possible.

From those axiomatic nuggets, objective ("not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts") reasoning and logic can be used to evaluate competing moral propositions in a search for the ideal moral framework. The Standard you argue we need is filled by the simplest possible moral axioms that form the base of the system.

AHA, you say! But how do you prove the Universally and Objectively Correct Axioms! You don't. You can't. But what if someone else holds "human suffering" or "I am the supreme value" as their axiom? Isn't that a problem? Well, yeah, but I'm not sure it is necessarily a "moral" problem anymore. If you are swimming in the ocean and are attacked by a shark, is it a moral problem? You have morals, but other than fighting back or giving up, what choice do you have and what difference does morality make? Might doesn't make right, but it does make what is. As much as possible we strive to obtain and maintain the "moral environment", but we live in a cold and amoral universe with no omnipotent god to make it alright, so at the very, very, very, end, I suppose we may be nothing more than the product of sociobiological moral evolution... survival of the fittest morals. If you don't have mutually beneficial morals, you fight among yourselves more, and you tend to get killed off by those of us with more mutually cooperative morals when we clash.

--------------------------------

To further expand on the concept:

I think when we say someone is morally wrong, we are saying the fundamental axioms are the same, or similar, but the logic or reasoning is flawed, subjectively skewed, or biased in their favor. Like people who thought slavery was okay because black people weren't really human, but owning an actual human slave would be wrong. Right premise, wrong conclusion, morally wrong.

When we say someone or something is evil, I believe we are really saying it is based on bad/wrong/conflicting axioms of human value. Human suffering is good, so torture is good. Uh, if you believe that, I find you evil (based on my moral axioms.) If you believe only you have value, so raping women is fine if you like it, regardless of their opinion, then I say you are evil.

As for the universally objectively provable right and wrong axioms? I don't know. I don't even know "objective" morality exists or could be proven if there is just subjective human experience. Are they just sociobiology and part of our brain wiring? Probably. All I know is that I am confident to my core that I am willing to take a stand for the ones I believe are "right", and I am willing to fight, kill, and die alongside others who have the same beliefs in order to defend a better vision for the human race, even if that means sacrificing the only life I will ever have, everything really, to make that the meaning of my life, the legacy of my existence, my contribution to humanity. Isn't that what really matters?? Is that, perhaps, even the meaning of life as an atheist?

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.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 06:40 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2014 06:54 PM by djhall.)
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 06:08 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  OK, as no-one seems to wanna give Jeremy any good answers on this could someone answer this for me? If I think rape is always wrong, regardless of the views of the rapist (or his society, or his law-givers) then I must be thinking in some way that my own views are superior. I'm not saying there is an objective moral decider, but I do seem to be saying that certain things are objectively wrong regardless what anyone else thinks. How does that square off with my view that morality is subjective? I seriously can't think of an answer to this at the moment. Anyone care to help me out here?

So, assuming you have moral axioms like, "my has value" and "what gives my life value gives others value too" then you can build moral judgements based on those axioms. If someone thinks it is okay to rape in their society, say because they believe women are incapable of survival on their own and sex is the repayment due for protection, then you can say they are morally wrong, because clearer, more objective, and more consistent reasoning from your shared or similar moral axioms would demonstrate that those actions were not the best expressions of the moral ideal.

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.

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
[+] 4 users Like djhall's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: