Morality without Absolute Morality

Stopped_lurking said:

Not all infinite regresses seem to be vicious, are even all ontological or epidemiological vicious? You seemed to claim that this particular one is vicious, when you said that they drain away to nothing. It's your argument and you haven't shown it.

Click to expand...

So you say, but even people who argue that they are possible/aren't incoherent admit that if we're looking for an explanation for why there is anything at all then infinite regresses are vicious. it is only by changing what we're trying to explain that they can survive, so it's not on me to prove the viciousness but on anyone claiming them to be the case to argue theirs isn't vicious. Which if you're not defending such a position, why are you pressing me?

Fervent said:

So you say, but even people who argue that they are possible/aren't incoherent admit that if we're looking for an explanation for why there is anything at all then infinite regresses are vicious.

Click to expand...

They do? Everyone?

Fervent said:

it is only by changing what we're trying to explain that they can survive, so it's not on me to prove the viciousness but on anyone claiming them to be the case. Which if you're not defending such a position, why are you pressing me.

Click to expand...

Because you have a unsubstantiated presumption in your argument, as such it is not very convincing. That is my point.

Stopped_lurking said:

They do? Everyone?

Click to expand...

The most prominent arguments, yes. I'm not aware of any that say otherwise, are you?

Stopped_lurking said:

Because you have a unsubstantiated presumption in your argument, as such it is not very convincing. That is my point.

Click to expand...

So you claim, but it's a simple fact not a presumption. If there is no original source of the sugar, there is no explanation for where the sugar came from.

Of course, arguing about infinite regresses is rather pointless since all they will ever be is hypotheticals since no one is actually able to provide such an infinite account.

Fervent said:

The most prominent arguments, yes. I'm not aware of any that say otherwise, are you?

Click to expand...

Doesn't Peter Klein hold to infinitism in epistemology? If so it at least makes sense to ask you why you feel it must be vicious.

Fervent said:

So you claim, but it's a simple fact not a presumption. If there is no original source of the sugar, there is no explanation for where the sugar came from.

Click to expand...

No. It is just your assertion.

Fervent said:

Of course, arguing about infinite regresses is rather pointless since all they will ever be is hypotheticals since no one is actually able to provide such an infinite account.

Click to expand...

Ok, we can leave it at that if you want to.

Stopped_lurking said:

Doesn't Peter Klein hold to infinitism in epistemology? If so it at least makes sense to ask you why you feel it must be vicious.

Click to expand...

There are defenders, but that doesn't really show anything.

Stopped_lurking said:

No. It is just your assertion.

Click to expand...

Nope, it's a reality. If not, what is the explanation for where the sugar came from?

Stopped_lurking said:

Ok, we can leave it at that if you want to.

Click to expand...

Sure, though it's rather odd you press me and offer nothing by way of challenge other than basically saying "nuh uh".

Fervent said:

There are defenders, but that doesn't really show anything.

Click to expand...

It justifies a certain skepticism when people claims things as true by default.

Fervent said:

Nope, it's a reality. If not, what is the explanation for where the sugar came from?

Sure, though it's rather odd you press me and offer nothing by way of challenge other than basically saying "nuh uh".

Click to expand...

Thank you for the literary criticism, I was just pointing out a weakness in your argument, that you presumed the viciousness in the infinite regress.

Stopped_lurking said:

Next Thursday?! I see we are working with closed time curves here I think it will be found to be caused by the "oorsakad" phenomenon. We won't know how it works, but it will explain everything. No I won't try to justify it, but please know that I'm right.

Click to expand...

Last Thursdayism isn't extreme enough for me.

Fervent said:

I find your claim of solipsism disingenuous..unless you don't know what that term means.

Click to expand...

Normally I wouldn't go off topic like this, especially to respond to something as inconsequential as insults. But I thought that in this singular case I'd make an exception. Don't be surprised if I don't make a habit of it.

As to my solipsism, perhaps I should've been clearer, I'm an epistemological solipsist. Which simply holds that nothing can be known to exist outside of one's own mind. To me this term simply reminds me to be humble about just how much it is that I simply don't know. My profile says 'Agnostic', but that's simply because 'Solipsist' isn't one of the available choices, and to be honest, to me that's all that epistemological solipsism is... agnosticism pushed to its logical conclusion.

You also must've missed the post where I referred to myself as a Christian. Perhaps this post will better explain this seeming dichotomy:

partinobodycular said:

jonojim1337 said:

But going beyond just the religious pretext, I think we can see a personality from all walks of life, but showing the same traits.

Click to expand...

Can you tell me which traits you're referring to?

Also, can't this concept be extended to any set of traits? In that we can find people with these traits everywhere, not just in one specific subset of the population. For example, can we find Sadducees everywhere, or Zealots, or Samaritans?

And following this line of reasoning, should we really expect to find Christians only among the members of a specific religious group? Are we really to distinguish them solely by their adherence to a specific set of religious dogma? Or are there Christians everywhere? Even among the Gentiles, be they Muslims, or Buddhists, or agnostics, or atheists?

In other words, if we define people solely by their traits, i.e humility, honesty, patience, and mercy... who then are the Christians?

Click to expand...

partinobodycular said:

Normally I wouldn't go off topic like this, especially to respond to something as inconsequential as insults. But I thought that in this singular case I'd make an exception. Don't be surprised if I don't make a habit of it.

As to my solipsism, perhaps I should've been clearer, I'm an epistemological solipsist. Which simply holds that nothing can be known to exist outside of one's own mind. To me this term simply reminds me to be humble about just how much it is that I simply don't know. My profile says 'Agnostic', but that's simply because 'Solipsist' isn't one of the available choices, and to be honest, to me that's all that epistemological solipsism is... agnosticism pushed to its logical conclusion.

You also must've missed the post where I referred to myself as a Christian. Perhaps this post will better explain this seeming dichotomy:

Click to expand...

Ah...I appreciate the explanation, and I'm in a similar camp though I find the terminology suspect and prefer the more conventional Pyrrhonist/Pyrrhonian skeptic. Though I prefer to stick to epistemological confidences rather than speaking in terms of knowledge, as I don't believe that such skepticism is liveable outside of philosophical speculations.

My approach can come across as harsh, but that's because a lot of my interactions are patterned after Jeremiah and Elijah in their dealings with pagan prophets. And i don't think we're as off topic as it might seem, because these epistemic and metaphysical issues are necessarily involved when we discuss objectivity of ethics.

Fervent said:

I'm in a similar camp though I find the terminology suspect and prefer the more conventional Pyrrhonist/Pyrrhonian skeptic.

Click to expand...

I might well have come to refer to myself as a Pyrrhonist if I'd ever encountered the term, but only having a ninth grade education high falutin philosophy terms are above my pay grade. So at this point, when called upon to do so, I just refer to myself as one of these three, a Christian, a Stoic, or a Solipsist, in that order. The last one being by far the least important. They each represent some aspect of who I am. To wit, my avatar is both a rather decent physical representation, and a brutally honest psychological/spiritual portrayal of who I am as a person.

When the bible speaks of the least of these my children, it's referring to me.

Fervent said:

My approach can come across as harsh, but that's because a lot of my interactions are patterned after Jeremiah and Elijah in their dealings with pagan prophets.

Click to expand...

My approach is to accept the pagan prophets for who and what they are, for I of all people have no right to judge someone in whose shoes I've never walked.

partinobodycular said:

I might well have come to refer to myself as a Pyrrhonist if I'd ever encountered the term, but only having a ninth grade education high falutin philosophy terms are above my pay grade. So at this point, when called upon to do so, I just refer to myself as one of these three, a Christian, a Stoic, or a Solipsist, in that order. The last one being by far the least important. They each represent some aspect of who I am. To wit, my avatar is both a rather decent physical representation, and a brutally honest psychological/spiritual portrayal of who I am as a person.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I generally simply refer to myself as a (philosophical) skeptic given the unfamiliarity most have with the Pyrrhonic movement and its heritage in philosophy. I suppose the terms are not all that important, other than a possibility for confusion. Solipsism, for me, is far too heavily related to Matrix-style thought experiments for my tastes. I consider myself a Christian, a Eudomonist(virtue ethicist), and a skeptic. Though as with you, they are not of equal importance.

partinobodycular said:

When the bible speaks of the least of these my children, it's referring to me.

Click to expand...

Me, as well. And when it says I am the worst of sinners, that is also me.

partinobodycular said:

My approach is to accept the pagan prophets for who and what they are, for I of all people have no right to judge someone in whose shoes I've never walked.

Click to expand...

My aim is for the philosophies that hold folks captive, rather than a judgment on the individuals themselves. Though separating the two is often not possible in practice, so I operate as I feel led. Sometimes I am overly zealous, though, I must admit.

A hypothetical. If the bible is true and humans are in a fallen state and can only be redeemed by the tranforming blood of Christ into a new person in mind and spirit.

Then how can anyone who is not born again ever be able to truely resis sin. If they do not live by the spirit but by the flesh then ultimately they will sin. They will be more open to sin and corruption. Especially when in high places and positions of power and money as these are the gateways to sin without Christ as temptation is hard enough. Let alone subjecting oneself to a higher temptation.

Therefore it seems to me that if the bible is true then it stands to reason that now that secular society has completely detached itself from God that it will be inevitable that our leaders will sin and be corrupted in one way or another.

Now I know people will say, what about the church when in power and all its abuses. This is true. But I am talking about being born again and these abuses are of the flesh even though it is religion.

I am talking about as the early church was living by Christs teachings and the fellowship of the bread in Christ. Exampling Christ to the point of sacrificing themselves like Christ.

I say this as I think the sin and corruption has become so great in the world that some are returning back to the simple basics of the early church and setting an example that is above reproach.

Therefore if Christs church does rise up and can set this example of purity in being Christlike and faultless that no charges can be held against them. Do you think that this example would be enough to show that it is only through Christ that we can be set that example to the world.

Its not that people don't know right from wrong. Rather than it seems to me with all the corruption and abuse we are seeing with our leaders that we can only truely be morally good is by being reborn in Christ.

stevevw said:

A hypothetical. If the bible is true and humans are in a fallen state and can only be redeemed by the tranforming blood of Christ into a new person in mind and spirit.

Then how can anyone who is not born again ever be able to truely not sin. If they do not live by the spirit but by the flesh then ultimately they will sin. They will be open to sin and corruption. Especially when in high places and positions of power and money as these are the gateways to sin without Christ as temptation is hard enough. Let alone subjecting oneself to a higher temptation.

Therefore it seems to me that if the bible is true then it stands to reason that now that secular society has completely detached itself from God that it will be inevitable that our leaders will sin and be corrupted in one way or another.

Now I know people will say, what about the church when in power and all its abuses. This is true. But I am talking about being born again and these abuses are of the flesh even though it is religion.

I am talking about as the early church was living by Christs teachings and the fellowship of the bread in Christ. Exampling Christ to the point of sacrificing themselves like Christ.

I say this as I think the sin and corruption has become so great in the world that some are returning back to the simple basics of the early church and setting an example that is above reproach.

Therefore if Christs church does rise up and can set this example of purity in being Christlike and faultless that no charges can be held against them. Do you think that this example would be enough to show that it is only through Christ that we can be set that example to the world.

Its not that people don't know right from wrong. Rather than it seems to me with all the corruption and abuse we are seeing with our leaders that we can only truely be morally good is by being reborn in Christ.

Click to expand...

It is not God who is the problem, He can and will forgive, the problem is man as in man-man,

the last five of the big ten concern man-man.

and the overstepping is enormous, not a little

due to uncontrolled tongues.

Important to remember, "Remember what God did to Miriam." (Deuteronomy 24:9)

Robban said:

It is not God who is the problem, He can and will forgive, the problem is man as in man-man,

the last five of the big ten concern man-man.

and the overstepping is enormous, not a little

due to uncontrolled tongues.

Important to remember, "Remember what God did to Miriam." (Deuteronomy 24:9)

Click to expand...

I think you may have misunderstood what I was suggesting. I am not saying God is the problem but actually fallen man who claims to know better and defies God. That only a person renewed in mind and spirit in Christ will ever be able to have a chance at being truely good to lead the people.

Therefore the logical assumption is that those in power who lead and are not renewed in Christ will inevitably be corrupted one way or another.

As though this is our measuring stick that can tell us ultimately though leaders claim to be moral such as being Woke or Humanist or whatever ideology used to replace God. That this will ultimately be corrupted and will should not be surpiised when we see such corruption come out today in leadership.

But I think you have highlighted another aspect. If this is the case that those who defy God blantly, ie have known God and His way but still defy Him then Gods judgement and punishment will also come upon them in one way or another.

stevevw said:

I think you may have misunderstood what I was suggesting. I am not saying God is the problem but actually fallen man who claims to know better and defies God. That only a person renewed in mind and spirit in Christ will ever be able to have a chance at being truely good to lead the people.

Therefore the logical assumption is that those in power who lead and are not renewed in Christ will inevitably be corrupted one way or another.

As though this is our measuring stick that can tell us ultimately though leaders claim to be moral such as being Woke or Humanist or whatever ideology used to replace God. That this will ultimately be corrupted and will should not be surpiised when we see such corruption come out today in leadership.

But I think you have highlighted another aspect. If this is the case that those who defy God blantly, ie have known God and His way but still defy Him then Gods judgement and punishment will also come upon them in one way or another.

Click to expand...

Well, the thought behind what I wrote was, slander, gossip, idle talk is so serious and damaging even though it may seem harmless.

W hen the great Prophetess Miriam, Moses older sister spoke with Aaron about Moses relationship with his wife God was enraged.

If Miriam was punished for seemingly harmless chitter chatter, how much more then should we avoid getting involved in such.

Thereof, Deuteronomy 24:9, to remind oneself.