Atheism and nihilism

zippy2006 · Jul 11, 2020

Moral Orel said:
Speaking of these being too long, feel free to trim some fat in your next response. I'll feel like I'm being rude by ignoring something you find important to the discussion if I do it, but I think we both could do with a little less meandering, don't you?

Ha, both of us are bad at shortening posts. I will try to shave some out, though I think it is beginning to narrow some. The difficulty is that the topic is difficult.

A few weeks ago I almost tried to tackle a difficult book: Knowing the Natural Law: From Precepts and Inclinations to Deriving Oughts. I will probably read it soon but I want to finish a few others first. It is very much on topic, and now there are a number of threads that relate to this problem. The difficulty is that our undertaking here is ambitious to say the least. Trying to nail down the foundations of practical reason and tie up the is-ought problem isn't easy for anyone, and you are probably a skeptic with regard to objective morality precisely because the problem seems to intractable. So I'll try, but longer posts may be unavoidable since we're in a forest with very few trails. In any case, I think we're converging in some areas, and I don't write more than one long post per day so hopefully things are manageable.

But in this scenario they don't know what security is. No one has agreed to not steal from one another, so it's on me to convince them what it's like.

If citizens don't steal then their possessions will be more secure. If they value the security of their possessions then you're in like flint. If they don't you either have to convince them or "emotionally manipulate" them to change their mind. Sound about right?

That makes sense I guess. "More reasonable" meaning "More likely to be true", okay. But when an argument is shown to have a premise that is not true, then there's no more gauging reasonableness or the likelihood of it being true. How likely the other premises are doesn't matter in an unsound argument.

I agree, especially if you're focused on the conclusion. When reading some thinkers you can learn a lot from inferential reasoning, thus benefiting from a wise mind even if their ultimate conclusion is off. This is also true if you read older thinkers who were working with outdated premises, such as a geocentric cosmology or the like.

I think your previous statements got the point across better, and I'm satisfied with the conclusion on that. I'm compelled to share my opinion on psychological subjects though so I have to point out that Freud was a fraud. Not only is case-study an awful way to make general statements about human psychology, he studies loonies, and when the data didn't match his theories he altered the findings to fit. It's ridiculous that he's the most famous psychologist in pop-culture. And CBT and psychoanalysis are techniques, I don't see them as "striking close to the truth". Different techniques work for different people, and it's good that people can find options that work for them.

Okay, thanks for sharing. Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the approaches strike closer to the truth.

The despairing individual desires to not act, though. Not wasting energy is the closest thing to a state of happiness they think is attainable. Like a guy in high school who never asks out any girls because he thinks the only answer he'll get is "no". Avoiding embarrassment is desire fulfillment too.

Taking depression as an example, is it a desire to not act or merely a lack of desire? I'd go with the latter. When my sister sits in her chair and sulks out of spite rather than play ping pong she has a desire to not act. After she has fallen asleep in the chair she merely has a lack of desire.

There is a weird sort of pathology that people experience suffering when they feel too good, but that's sort of like guilt. They still desire to be happy, but feel suffering for feeling happy. So they abstain from things that bring happiness because they desire to not feel guilt. It happens mostly in religious circles, heh.

Haha, that's interesting.

Sounds circular. If I do good things then I deserve to have good things come my way, sounds reasonable. But what are good things to do? Whatever I desire is all we have so far. So if I do what I desire then I deserve what I desire?

Let me try an outrageous example. This isn't an exception to a rule, it's entirely fictional, so treat it like a proof of concept. Let's say Superman lands on our planet with all of his powers, none of his weaknesses, and he's a complete sociopath. He can't experience negative consequences of any kind because of his invulnerability and lack of empathy, so would you say that he should destroy entire cities with his laser beam eyes if that's how he gets his jollies? (You don't have to tell him that)

Mmm, I basically agree that the idea is circular and unhelpful, which is why I said the better option is to take a pre-moral route for the time being. You introduced morality when you asked whether they deserve it.

In a way this goes back to my claim that we act on desire, but not on every desire, for we have competing desires. But no matter which desires we act on, we will be acting on desire. For starters you just do what you find to be desirable. In time you will learn that it isn't desirable to take what you don't deserve (but we're not at that point in our conversation yet; we're still talking about desire in a pre-moral way, or as the foundation of morality and normativity).

I also want to point out that you ought to be careful about the subjective/objective distinction. Speaking about desert or truth that is unknown to the subject is reading ahead in the book. I'm not there yet. I'm talking about truth and happiness as perceived. I'm still on the subjective end of the spectrum, and we have to be patient before we move towards the objective end. To speak paradoxically, humans seek what is good before they know what is good; they seek what is desirable before they have thought about what they ought to desire. ..but I will say more about this below.

See, that just sounds like an empty assertion to me: that if I say X I mean Y.

But do you think my claim of equivalence was false? If so, why?

Using "should" means that X is supposed to happen and you are the one who is supposed to cause it to happen. Why is X supposed to happen? Just because you want it to?

The ground of the assertion is happiness, to be sure. "This will make you happier" means you should do it because happiness is what all men seek. It's like saying, "This will get you where you are trying to go." I'm still not convinced your questions are meaningful: "Why should I seek happiness?" "Why should I reach for what I want?" "Why should I get to where I am trying to go?"

Granted, in some ways the question, "Why do we want to be happy?" or "Why do humans want to be happy?" has no answer. Happiness really is an end in itself. It doesn't require external justification or some other end to which it can be subordinated to.

Another general piece of advice for our conversation: arguments and reasoning are grounded in premises and rules of inference. Premises can in turn be argued for when they are questioned. Yet the buck has to stop somewhere (both in speculative and practical reasoning). We could call the place where the buck stops "foundational premises": premises that are not the conclusions of further syllogisms. For example: the law of non-contradiction. It isn't justified by argument, it just is. You just see it. You just accept it.

Foundational premises are inherently mysterious, but however we know them, it isn't in the normal way we know normal premises and conclusions. It isn't through discursive and deductive reasoning. The most parsimonious answer is that they are simply the product of basic induction, and that could be right, but the point is that when we arrive at a foundational premise you aren't allowed to attack it in the same way you would attack a non-foundational premise. It seems to us that there is always a further reason in the long chain of practical motives and reasoning, but not for happiness. Happiness is an end in itself. (Of course you can challenge whether a putatively foundational premise is really foundational, but you cannot use standard argumentation to criticize a premise qua foundational) It's like our hovercraft switches over to water and the laws of physics change due to the different medium.

You can make an okay case that desire is ordered to fulfillment based on the fact that we do it 100% of the time. We deny the truth all the time, so I don't see how you can make a case that "You just believe the truth". People believe what feels convincing to them, and that is quite often not the truth.

But here is an example of a place where that crucial distinction between subjective and objective is necessary. The reason people believe things that are not the truth is because they don't see the truth. If they saw that it was the truth they would believe it. When people look up at the night sky and see Venus they will tell you it's a star. Their belief does not correspond to the reality. Give them a powerful telescope and they will correct their belief.

Some folks might be tempted to call a "no true scotsman" on that "healthy" remark, but I agree that we can equate normal and healthy in this instance. And since that's generally the extent I was pointing to a problem with the use of the word "universal", I agree. Everyone wants to be happy.

I figured since you studied psychology you would accept the idea that certain pathologies should not bear on our conversation. That's even a difference between truth and morality. Truth & logic allow no deviations, but morality is looser. We end up looking at trends and probabilities in a way that the mathematical certitude of logical reasoning would not.

Trouble is, what makes people happy is much, much less universal.

That's true.

Okay. I can't disagree, but I can't see anything of substance either. We're still just saying that people desire things, and they're interested in what they desire. Coupled with the statement above, people want to be happy and they're interested in their own happiness.

Okay good, I think it's important that we agree on this. (I'd like to say more but I'm going to wait since this post is getting quite long)

Maybe I'm not explaining it clearly enough. Dopamine is in a mediatory role, the sensation of pleasure is what we're after. If you hooked a person up to a robust dopamine machine they would never leave it. It would be the most addictive thing on the planet and it would become the only thing they desire.

The sensation of pleasure is what we want. We want to eat because dopamine is released when we eat. We want dopamine to be released because it feels good. We want to feel good because.... it feels good. I don't get it, that's where the magic happens. If there is anything that is intrinsically good, that would be it.

Perhaps you could create a machine or a drug that "the rats would happily consume until they obliviously died of starvation." Still, I don't think it's what we desire. It would just be a drug that is so powerful that the addict has no chance of digging himself out. I think a large part of him would still want to dig himself out as his body atrophies, connected to the machine. (This is a large topic that may need to be tabled--not sure)

Okay, makes sense. Saying, "I should desire this" doesn't necessarily mean I don't desire it, but I might not. "I should desire this, and I do." See? But it very well might be, "I should desire this, but I don't".

Okay, sure. So you are saying there is an opening between, "I am right to desire this," and, "I should fulfill this desire." Or if you don't like that phrasing, "I desire this and I should desire this," and, "I should fulfill this desire." I'm not sure there is a gap. If she desires it and she is fully convinced that it is a worthwhile desire, then I think she will draw the conclusion that it should be fulfilled (or act spontaneously to fulfill it). We are in the odd position of always translating behavioral motivations into syllogistic logic. Desires don't always work that way, even if they are reflective, intellectual desires.

What we need to talk about is how discursive reasoning and automatic human nature relate. I alluded to it above with the idea of foundational premises, but I think this is one of the central questions. For example, if we fully believe something to be true then we cannot help but believe it. That is basically not a moral or praiseworthy "transition." It's just what happens. Similarly, it is not morally praiseworthy that we desire happiness, nor is it at all volitional. That's just the way we are. It's just a starting point. Anyway, I won't say more in this ever-lengthening post.

I agree with the second statements, I have to ask "Why?" about the first statements. If they are true, put them in a syllogism form for me with "we should believe things that are true" and "we should seek things that make us happy" as the conclusions. I'm bad at writing 'em, but I can read 'em just fine!

I'm not quite sure how to write a syllogism for these. If I tried it would be symbolic logic with lots of steps and I'm not sure how helpful it would be.

We've agreed that we do believe things that we believe are true. Truth is the natural object of the intellect. That seems to support the first proposition, no? What would the alternative be? "We should believe things that are false"? We could ask why we ought to seek after truth. Because it is good.

I think parallel reasoning applies to the second proposition. We do seek things that we believe will make us happy. Happiness is the natural object of the will. The alternative is to seek things that make us unhappy. Happiness is good/desirable.

(Trying to carry out the contrary of either proposition is probably literally impossible. Trying to believe things that are false or seek things that make us unhappy just wouldn't work. You may as well ask someone to fly like Superman.)

Whether someone deserves happiness or not, people almost universally feel that they do.

"I decided to do X" isn't the same as "I should do X". See my Superman analogy above to address it.

I'm passing over these in light of length. Lemme know if you object.

Yeah, our convos will likely run pretty parallel. And if he bothers to read these dissertations we've been writing he might find clues as to where I disagree with him, I just won't do it outright.

*Dusts off hands and admires his work.* Wow, I really succeeded in making that substantially shorter than before, didn't I?

stevevw · Jul 12, 2020

Moral Orel said:
I'll rephrase for clarity: all that you can say that is true is "I don't like this behavior". People are capable of saying anything they want.

Isn't that just another way of saying 'should or ought'. Qualifying what you can and can't say is still sort of restricting a person's options to one option. They can only say "I don't like this behavior" as the only truth for a moral situation. They are capable of doing anything else but then from what you have just qualified that would not be a true claim. They would be going beyond what qualifies a subjective moral position. Is this a fair assessment.

Moral Orel · Jul 12, 2020

stevevw said:
Isn't that just another way of saying 'should or ought'. Qualifying what you can and can't say is still sort of restricting a person's options to one option. They can only say "I don't like this behavior" as the only truth for a moral situation. They are capable of doing anything else but then from what you have just qualified that would not be a true claim. They would be going beyond what qualifies a subjective moral position. Is this a fair assessment.

It is not saying "should" or "ought". Most of the rest of your post sounds correct. Let's say you want to say something to the effect of "murder is morally bad". The following statements are true:

I don't like murder.
I would prefer to not be murdered.
You probably don't like murder and would prefer not to be murdered.
Etc.

You can say anything else you want about whether you "should" or "ought" or how "right" or "wrong" you feel it is, but it won't be true. People say things that are not true all the time.

You want to point out the consequences of operating under a morality that is subjective, and a lot of what you say is true. But you take it a step further and say things like, "If subjective morality is true, then you should accept other viewpoints" and that is not true. If subjective morality is true, then any statement that uses the word "should" is automatically nullified as not true.

stevevw · Jul 12, 2020

Moral Orel said:
It is not saying "should" or "ought". Most of the rest of your post sounds correct. Let's say you want to say something to the effect of "murder is morally bad". The following statements are true:

I don't like murder.
I would prefer to not be murdered.
You probably don't like murder and would prefer not to be murdered.
Etc.

Yes, this is how I see subjectivists can express their view of morality. But I am saying that this is inadequate for expressing and determining moral actions in reality and that is why people keep adding 'shoulds and oughts' into the situation. They cannot help it because just saying I don't like it or prefer it not to happen just doesn't work or reflect the reality and seriousness of morality.

I cannot imagine someone expressing the actions of a killer who has taken their child or child abuser or abuser of women in society and saying I would prefer that they did not do that. What we do see is people making a stand, condemning these acts as wrong and demanding they stop or something be done to stop them. This seems to express something beyond a "like or dislike'.

You can say anything else you want about whether you "should" or "ought" or how "right" or "wrong" you feel it is, but it won't be true. People say things that are not true all the time.

The problem I have with this is that when people do use 'shoulds and ought' and as explained above they do say these acts are wrong and demand immoral behavior to stop and make appeals to truth and realness. This is more than just some false claim. The language is linked to something real.

Otherwise, it seems a useless and meaningless exercise and I don't think it is. The dependence on this type of language when appealing to these situations and power given to when and how they say these things is what makes it "truth' and real. If we then say "no it is not real" then we are actually negating human worth and the reality of the situation. The truth of morality cannot be measured by science. It is the way that humans give something power and realness that makes it the truth.

You want to point out the consequences of operating under a morality that is subjective, and a lot of what you say is true. But you take it a step further and say things like, "If subjective morality is true, then you should accept other viewpoints" and that is not true. If subjective morality is true, then any statement that uses the word "should" is automatically nullified as not true.

I agree but I would have thought as you have qualified above that there is a certain way a subjectivist has to position themselves to meet the meaning of subjective morality. Part of that would be not appealing to morality like it is making a factual or truthful claim. Hence they 'should' not speak like that otherwise they are taking the opposite position of subjectivity and thus I agree they disqualify themselves from a subjective position.

When I say that subjectivists should accept other viewpoints this is because of the qualifying criteria of being subjectivists. If it is not about 'shoulds and oughts' and facts and truth then how can anyone take a subjective position say to someone else that their subjective position is morally wrong and does not qualify.

So long as they are expressing their 'likes and dislikes' no one should be disqualifying them with a 'you should not like this or that' your views don't qualify. That is why I say a subjectivist must accept and include all other people's moral positions because there are no disqualifying criteria. I have no issue that subjective morality is about 'likes and dislikes'. But the issue comes when subjectivists begin to use language that moves things from 'likes and dislikes to language qualifying what moral values are acceptable or not.

stevevw · Jul 12, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
No.

That is strange as from everything I have read on the topic and even from those who support subjective morality that how I describe subjective morality being only something that reflects the subject (person) who is making the claim or statement. Therefore it can only apply to them and is not representative of someone else. For example, I may believe that abortion is morally wrong and is the taking of life. But under a subjective moral system, my view is not representative of others who believe that abortion is morally OK.

Therefore under the subjective system, it can accommodate both views and any other view. Not are objectively true. But if science could independently show through the scientific method that the fetus is human life then we could say that this is an objective fact. My or any other person's personal view cannot change that fact.

There are no such a thing as a moral fact; there are only moral beliefs. If I said “X” (rape, murder, abortion, etc) is wrong, and I state it is factually wrong, the question then becomes; what facts are you basing that on?

For me it doesn't just have to be what objective basis a moral claim is based on to make it truth or fact. It is the fact that a person appeals to the moral act being wrong is what makes it a fact or truth. It is how that claim and appeal is made in a real-life situation that gives it truth power.

If it wasn't substantiated as truth then the entire basis for human engagement would breakdown into a chaotic mess where nothing could be determined as right or wrong. So people make morality truth and real by the way they depend on it and make it true and real.

Now various theists have been known to say “because my deity (Jesus, Allah, Bahama, etc) said so. But how is that different than saying “because I said so”? Just because their deity of choice says so doesn’t make it factually wrong. If something is objectively true, any deity is subject to that objective truth just like anyone else. (example) I am 6 foot tall; this is an objective fact. If a deity says I am not 6 foot tall, that deity would be wrong. The attempt to make a deity's claims objective doesn't work any more than trying to make my claims objective.

This is the Euthyphro dilemma. This was based on the Greek gods who were really human-made gods who debated morality and interacted with humans. Socrates asks Euthyphro "Is moral right loved by the gods because it is morally right or because it morally right because it is loved by the gods?"

As for the Christian God, it doesn't work this way. There is only one God who is the moral lawgiver and it is His nature that makes morality rather than Him choosing some moral standard or commanding us to follow a moral standard. God's nature is good so the qualities of moral good flow from this to us without any choice or command.

Jesus says there is only one way to God and that He is the truth when it comes to morality. So this is a claim not of a human or someone subject to arbitrary choices. God's laws are written on our minds and the Bible says we all know of them regardless of time, culture, or socialization when he says that the Gentiles who didn't have the laws also knew the laws even before the laws were given by God.

So God's laws are like natural laws similar to maths for example. We know that 2 objects plus 2 objects equal 4 objects and that these even numbers can be dispersed evenly and that odds numbers can be unequal when sharing things out in pairs. We don't need to be taught that. Just like God's moral laws. We intuitive know when something is wrong. When we see someone assaulting another or taking something of theirs without reason that this is wrong. We appeal to these laws like they are truths despite our personal opinions.[/quote][/quote]

Speedwell · Jul 12, 2020

stevevw said:
Once again that is not my subjective opinion. That is something a person named Jesus said a little over 2000 years ago. He also claimed He was the son of God and everything He did was what God did. He was one and the same.

So this is not my view but a claim by God you have to address. Jesus said there was no other way to God and claimed the truth about morality. So I am basing my morality on that truth and not my personal opinion. I may even not like some of the truths in what Jesus says like having to put God before money. So my subjective views come second.

All according to your subjective interpretation of an old book of religious stories. You are going to have to do better than that.

The superego is something Freud came up with where he said there was some battle between our conscience that was programmed by the influences of our parents and the self-identity that we perceive as ideal and right. So the superego is an unreal basis for determining morality as it can be irrational. It can contain anything from warped ideas of authority voices from overbearing caregivers to guilt complexes based on unreal expectations of parents.

The superego is a result of upbringing so there will be as many vari9ations in how that superego will affect people as there are individuals. Though there may be some common values that don't prove that they stem from the superego or that these values are somehow etched on our minds or have any rational and truth status that we can use this to account for why people have similar morals. Even if we concede that there are some common values these are dispersed in among many other distorted views which means we cannot rely on this as a good measure.

As far as I understand each person is born with a clean slate when it comes to morality. Morality has no genetic inheritance. The brain itself cannot just account for morality as it equates to some chemical or electrical reaction. It is more than that. It is more than our social and cultural upbringing. Babies and infants know of right and wrong before any influence of the superego or any other influence from society or culture. And this is despite culture or upbringing. If anything it is culture and socialization that distorts and destroys our innate and God given conscience or morality.

You should find out more about the subject before you rant. I don't know whether Freud's theories about the superego are correct or not, but clearly there is more going on in our minds than our conscious awareness, and that other part where our conscience appears to reside. My point was only that the content of our conscience can be used to condemn the moral positions of others--whether we believe that the content was placed there by millennia of social experience or by God. Nobody needs your permission to believe that the content of our consciences derives from something other than our immediate conscious moral deliberations.

Moral Orel · Jul 12, 2020

stevevw said:
When I say that subjectivists should accept other viewpoints this is because of the qualifying criteria of being subjectivists. If it is not about 'shoulds and oughts' and facts and truth then how can anyone take a subjective position say to someone else that their subjective position is morally wrong and does not qualify.

So long as they are expressing their 'likes and dislikes' no one should be disqualifying them with a 'you should not like this or that' your views don't qualify. That is why I say a subjectivist must accept and include all other people's moral positions because there are no disqualifying criteria. I have no issue that subjective morality is about 'likes and dislikes'. But the issue comes when subjectivists begin to use language that moves things from 'likes and dislikes to language qualifying what moral values are acceptable or not.

If I were to accept something, that would mean I'm not going to attempt to change it. The statement "you should not change other people's viewpoints to your liking" is not true. I accept that other viewpoints aren't "better" than mine, but if I don't like them then I don't care that they aren't "better", I'm going to attempt to affect the change in opinion or behavior of other people that I desire. That's how morality evolves and everyone does it.

durangodawood · Jul 12, 2020

Moral Orel said:
If I were to accept something, that would mean I'm not going to attempt to change it. The statement "you should not change other people's viewpoints to your liking" is not true. I accept that other viewpoints aren't "better" than mine, but if I don't like them then I don't care that they aren't "better", I'm going to attempt to affect the change in opinion or behavior of other people that I desire. That's how morality evolves and everyone does it.

Some Christians dont accept that the evolution of morality is valid.... despite it being on display right there in the Bible among Gods people.

Others see the obvious Biblical evidence that morality evolves, but think the brakes slammed on that as a legitimate process 2000 years ago, which to me seems blatantly contrary to historical evidence.

Ken-1122 · Jul 12, 2020

stevevw said:
That is strange as from everything I have read on the topic and even from those who support subjective morality that how I describe subjective morality being only something that reflects the subject (person) who is making the claim or statement. Therefore it can only apply to them and is not representative of someone else. For example, I may believe that abortion is morally wrong and is the taking of life. But under a subjective moral system, my view is not representative of others who believe that abortion is morally OK.

First of all, there is no such a thing as a “subjective moral system”. When someone says morality is subjective, they are not referring to any type of a system, they are saying moral issues cannot be demonstrated as right or wrong. If (for example) Killing was wrong, it would be wrong regardless of the circumstances; there would never be a case when killing would be justified. Just like with math there is no extenuating circumstances when the 1+1 would equal something other than 2 (math can be demonstrated thus objective), the same would apply to moral issues.

stevevw said:
Therefore under the subjective system, it can accommodate both views and any other view. Not are objectively true. But if science could independently show through the scientific method that the fetus is human life then we could say that this is an objective fact. My or any other person's personal view cannot change that fact.

What objective fact can you site that says killing people is wrong?

stevevw said:
For me it doesn't just have to be what objective basis a moral claim is based on to make it truth or fact. It is the fact that a person appeals to the moral act being wrong is what makes it a fact or truth.

So just because a person says something is wrong, that makes it wrong? You’ve got to be kidding!

stevevw said:
If it wasn't substantiated as truth then the entire basis for human engagement would breakdown into a chaotic mess where nothing could be determined as right or wrong.

Human societies are not based right vs wrong, they are based on what is legal vs illegal; big difference. If nothing could be determined as right or wrong, as long as we can determine what is legal or illegal, we’ll be fine.

stevevw said:
So people make morality truth and real by the way they depend on it and make it true and real. This is the Euthyphro dilemma. This was based on the Greek gods who were really human-made gods who debated morality and interacted with humans. Socrates asks Euthyphro "Is moral right loved by the gods because it is morally right or because it morally right because it is loved by the gods?"

This has nothing to do with what I said. I said your God does not determine morality any more than I or anybody else. Morality is not defined as “in accordance to the nature of Yahweh”.

durangodawood · Jul 12, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
Whatbjective fact can you site that says killing people is wrong?...

Certain kinds of violence within the human or even protohuman group lead to the breakdown of that group. So we have evolved to feel that kind of violence as wrong. Obviously I can't go back and prove it happened that way. But it seems like a plausible objective basis for killing your neighbor as feeling wrong.

Now if you're trying to distinguish between feeling wrong and being wrong. I would have to ask you exactly what do you mean "being wrong" that isn't covered by just feeling wrong.

Moral Orel · Jul 13, 2020

zippy2006 said:
If citizens don't steal then their possessions will be more secure. If they value the security of their possessions then you're in like flint. If they don't you either have to convince them or "emotionally manipulate" them to change their mind. Sound about right?

Right, if they already value security, then I need to convince them that my pact will provide what they desire. If they don't already value security, then I need to change what they desire. Either way, I'm working with their emotions to create some change.

zippy2006 said:
Taking depression as an example, is it a desire to not act or merely a lack of desire? I'd go with the latter. When my sister sits in her chair and sulks out of spite rather than play ping pong she has a desire to not act. After she has fallen asleep in the chair she merely has a lack of desire.

Oooh! That is a good point. A person suffering from depression doesn't derive pleasure where they used to, so in a philosophical sense it could be seen as a sort of aimless state where there is nothing to motivate action. It's probably part of the reason that such people suffer from a lack of appetite. Feel free to run with this. I might have to make a big shift in my thinking based on that. I might.

zippy2006 said:
Mmm, I basically agree that the idea is circular and unhelpful, which is why I said the better option is to take a pre-moral route for the time being. You introduced morality when you asked whether they deserve it.

In a way this goes back to my claim that we act on desire, but not on every desire, for we have competing desires. But no matter which desires we act on, we will be acting on desire. For starters you just do what you find to be desirable. In time you will learn that it isn't desirable to take what you don't deserve (but we're not at that point in our conversation yet; we're still talking about desire in a pre-moral way, or as the foundation of morality and normativity).

I also want to point out that you ought to be careful about the subjective/objective distinction. Speaking about desert or truth that is unknown to the subject is reading ahead in the book. I'm not there yet. I'm talking about truth and happiness as perceived. I'm still on the subjective end of the spectrum, and we have to be patient before we move towards the objective end. To speak paradoxically, humans seek what is good before they know what is good; they seek what is desirable before they have thought about what they ought to desire. ..but I will say more about this below.

Yeah, that's probably me just getting ahead of us thinking about the problems that are going to arise.

zippy2006 said:
But do you think my claim of equivalence was false? If so, why?

Because I can imagine myself not doing what I desire. I know that I won't, but it isn't impossible to comprehend. It would be easier to equate "I desire X" with "I will pursue X".

zippy2006 said:
The ground of the assertion is happiness, to be sure. "This will make you happier" means you should do it because happiness is what all men seek. It's like saying, "This will get you where you are trying to go." I'm still not convinced your questions are meaningful: "Why should I seek happiness?" "Why should I reach for what I want?" "Why should I get to where I am trying to go?"

The question "Why should I do X?" doesn't always have the answer "Because it will make you happy" does it?

zippy2006 said:
But here is an example of a place where that crucial distinction between subjective and objective is necessary. The reason people believe things that are not the truth is because they don't see the truth. If they saw that it was the truth they would believe it. When people look up at the night sky and see Venus they will tell you it's a star. Their belief does not correspond to the reality. Give them a powerful telescope and they will correct their belief.

Yeah, tell that to flat-earthers. I wish that was a rare exception to your rule, but it's ridiculously common now. They can look at all the evidence you've got and still declare it's flat. Because what is true is not the priority for them. Evidence and argumentation are secondary to valuing the happiness they derive from disagreeing. While I agree that people just do what they desire, I cannot agree that people just do believe what is true, regardless of the evidence.

zippy2006 said:
I figured since you studied psychology you would accept the idea that certain pathologies should not bear on our conversation. That's even a difference between truth and morality. Truth & logic allow no deviations, but morality is looser. We end up looking at trends and probabilities in a way that the mathematical certitude of logical reasoning would not.

Yeah, I agree. More of me thinking too far ahead again, I think.

zippy2006 said:
Perhaps you could create a machine or a drug that "the rats would happily consume until they obliviously died of starvation." Still, I don't think it's what we desire. It would just be a drug that is so powerful that the addict has no chance of digging himself out. I think a large part of him would still want to dig himself out as his body atrophies, connected to the machine. (This is a large topic that may need to be tabled--not sure)

I don't see where this is going either. It's too weird of an analogy. Honestly, I'm surprised you aren't focusing on the intrinsic goodness of the sensation of pleasure. I thought I was giving you an opening.

zippy2006 said:
Okay, sure. So you are saying there is an opening between, "I am right to desire this," and, "I should fulfill this desire." Or if you don't like that phrasing, "I desire this and I should desire this," and, "I should fulfill this desire." I'm not sure there is a gap. If she desires it and she is fully convinced that it is a worthwhile desire, then I think she will draw the conclusion that it should be fulfilled (or act spontaneously to fulfill it). We are in the odd position of always translating behavioral motivations into syllogistic logic. Desires don't always work that way, even if they are reflective, intellectual desires.

What we need to talk about is how discursive reasoning and automatic human nature relate. I alluded to it above with the idea of foundational premises, but I think this is one of the central questions. For example, if we fully believe something to be true then we cannot help but believe it. That is basically not a moral or praiseworthy "transition." It's just what happens. Similarly, it is not morally praiseworthy that we desire happiness, nor is it at all volitional. That's just the way we are. It's just a starting point. Anyway, I won't say more in this ever-lengthening post.

I think I covered this earlier when I talked about what I can imagine happening.

zippy2006 said:
I'm not quite sure how to write a syllogism for these. If I tried it would be symbolic logic with lots of steps and I'm not sure how helpful it would be.

We've agreed that we do believe things that we believe are true. Truth is the natural object of the intellect. That seems to support the first proposition, no? What would the alternative be? "We should believe things that are false"? We could ask why we ought to seek after truth. Because it is good.

I think parallel reasoning applies to the second proposition. We do seek things that we believe will make us happy. Happiness is the natural object of the will. The alternative is to seek things that make us unhappy. Happiness is good/desirable.

(Trying to carry out the contrary of either proposition is probably literally impossible. Trying to believe things that are false or seek things that make us unhappy just wouldn't work. You may as well ask someone to fly like Superman.)

Again, I think this was covered earlier. I think some of these points are collapsing in on one another. I took a lot of extra time to think about your post so that I could make my responses more terse. The rabbit trails were admittedly making it more difficult for me to keep track of the flow of our conversation. If I failed to address something important, let me know.

stevevw · Jul 13, 2020

Speedwell said:
All according to your subjective interpretation of an old book of religious stories. You are going to have to do better than that.

I remember you alluded to the Christian faithful. I am not sure if you are a Christian but are you saying that what Jesus said is made up by Christians. I think it is pretty clear that Jesus said He was the Son of God and that He is the savior of sinners. So, the teachings of Jesus and that He is the truth and light of God including His moral laws is pretty clear and all Christians agree what this represents. This is not my personal opinion but the words of Jesus. IE

John clearly states this at the beginning of His gospel John 20:31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Jesus clearly says He is the truth and the only way to God. John 14:16 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus made it very clear what the truth meant. It was flowing His words, His teachings and therefore Gods moral laws. John 8:31-32 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Here the truth is linked to morality in that suppressing the truth which would be Gods laws written on our conscience in how we know right and wrong. We can block that truth out so we can replace it with our own version of what we think is right and wrong or no right and wrong at all. Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

It is very clear that keeping God's law is linked to the “truth” of Jesus. 1 John 2:4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,

You should find out more about the subject before you rant. I don't know whether Freud's theories about the superego are correct or not, but clearly there is more going on in our minds than our conscious awareness, and that other part where our conscience appears to reside.

OK sorry about that but when you mentioned the Superego, I assumed you knew about this and that is why you mentioned it.

My point was only that the content of our conscience can be used to condemn the moral positions of others--whether we believe that the content was placed there by millennia of social experience or by God.

But there is a big difference that I am trying to point out between something that may have been evolved over millennia through naturalistic processes and a moral truth being placed there by God. That which is evolved is still arbitrary and cannot be relied upon a moral “truth”. It is derived from environmental factors, socialization and culture so will vary. It is influenced by personal experiences so will be personalized.

But a ‘truth’ from God will be like a law that remains the same and is the same for all. It can be etched on our conscience and we all intuitively know it. It originates from outside our minds and therefore has an objective grounding.

Nobody needs your permission to believe that the content of our consciences derives from something other than our immediate conscious moral deliberations.

I never said they needed any permission. I am just merely pointing out the difference between subjective and objective morality.

stevevw · Jul 13, 2020

Moral Orel said:
If I were to accept something, that would mean I'm not going to attempt to change it. The statement "you should not change other people's viewpoints to your liking" is not true. I accept that other viewpoints aren't "better" than mine, but if I don't like them then I don't care that they aren't "better", I'm going to attempt to affect the change in opinion or behavior of other people that I desire.

When you say you can accept other viewpoints arent better and you don't care I can understand that using 'should' to change other peoples viewpoint is not relevant because better or worse doesn't equate to judging moral values. It could equate to anything that can be better or worse. If someone does worse in a test or race it is not morally wrong. That's how I see subjective morality as well.

But if that's the case then why bother trying to change other peoples views to what you desire them to be. It doesn't matter as it doesn't really equate to anything moral that needs to be changed. As you said it's just something you don't like and therefore it can be left at that.

That's how morality evolves and everyone does it.

I find this confusing as it doesn't really capture what I think is happening with morality when we try to equate it to 'likes and dislikes'. Like I mentioned before saying you don't like a moral act doesn't really transfer into the reality of what is involved in that a morally wrong act cuts through more than feelings. I think it does speak about the facts of right and wrong behaviour, of consequences, of values. So we need to clearly qualify moral behaviour as right or wrong to reflect this.

Speedwell · Jul 13, 2020

stevevw said:
I remember you alluded to the Christian faithful. I am not sure if you are a Christian but are you saying that what Jesus said is made up by Christians. I think it is pretty clear that Jesus said He was the Son of God and that He is the savior of sinners. So, the teachings of Jesus and that He is the truth and light of God including His moral laws is pretty clear and all Christians agree what this represents. This is not my personal opinion but the words of Jesus. IE

John clearly states this at the beginning of His gospel John 20:31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Jesus clearly says He is the truth and the only way to God. John 14:16 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus made it very clear what the truth meant. It was flowing His words, His teachings and therefore Gods moral laws. John 8:31-32 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Here the truth is linked to morality in that suppressing the truth which would be Gods laws written on our conscience in how we know right and wrong. We can block that truth out so we can replace it with our own version of what we think is right and wrong or no right and wrong at all. Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

It is very clear that keeping God's law is linked to the “truth” of Jesus. 1 John 2:4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,

Yes, you believe that to be true. But faith is a subjective state. There s no objective basis for any of it.

OK sorry about that but when you mentioned the Superego, I assumed you knew about this and that is why you mentioned it. But there is a big difference that I am trying to point out between something that may have been evolved over millennia through naturalistic processes and a moral truth being placed there by God. That which is evolved is still arbitrary and cannot be relied upon a moral “truth”. It is derived from environmental factors, socialization and culture so will vary. It is influenced by personal experiences so will be personalized.

And?

But a ‘truth’ from God will be like a law that remains the same and is the same for all. It can be etched on our conscience and we all intuitively know it. It originates from outside our minds and therefore has an objective grounding. I never said they needed any permission. I am just merely pointing out the difference between subjective and objective morality.

No, you are condemning subjective moralists for "acting like" their morality was objective.

Speedwell · Jul 13, 2020

stevevw said:
When you say you can accept other viewpoints arent better and you don't care I can understand that using 'should' to change other peoples viewpoint is not relevant because better or worse doesn't equate to judging moral values. It could equate to anything that can be better or worse. If someone does worse in a test or race it is not morally wrong. That's how I see subjective morality as well.

But if that's the case then why bother trying to change other peoples views to what you desire them to be. It doesn't matter as it doesn't really equate to anything moral that needs to be changed. As you said it's just something you don't like and therefore it can be left at that.

Not if really really don't like it.

stevevw · Jul 13, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
First of all, there is no such a thing as a “subjective moral system”. When someone says morality is subjective, they are not referring to any type of a system, they are saying moral issues cannot be demonstrated as right or wrong.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. Subjective morality is not about people saying that morality cannot be demonstrated as right and wrong. It is about them just saying, expressing their viewpoint, how they see morality. Despite being subjective they still believe that what they are expressing about an action or behavior can be seen as right and wrong morally.

I think the person expressing the subjective view can honestly believe that a moral act is demonstrated as right and wrong. Otherwise, why would they even bother expressing and emphasizing the importance of valuing the act as wrong? If they knew that their expression of morality was not true and just an opinion, they would realize it did mean much to anyone but themselves. They may as well look in the mirror and express their morality.

If (for example) Killing was wrong, it would be wrong regardless of the circumstances; there would never be a case when killing would be justified.

This is not objective morality but rather absolute morality. Objective morality is about there being one morally wrong or right for any given situation that is beyond human views and opinions.

So, if you take killing then it may be an objective right to kill someone who is about to kill innocent children if that happened to be the only way to stop this in that particular situation. But it may be objectively wrong to kill someone to rob them of their money. Whereas absolute morality like with deontology means that there can be no justification or way killing is morally OK.

Just like with math there is no extenuating circumstances when the 1+1 would equal something other than 2 (math can be demonstrated thus objective), the same would apply to moral issues.

Yes this is one way to see objective morality as a sort of law that applies to moral values. But once again it only applies to each and every situation and its specific context. It is not absolute. For example, using your example of math with 1+1 =2 as we know there is more than one way to get to a total of 2 in math such as .5 x 4 = 2, 1.5 + .5 = 2 etc. They will always add up to 2 but there is no absolute in using only 2+2.

What objective fact can you site that says killing people is wrong?

First we need to clarify how we should measure objectivity when it comes to morality. Moral values are not physical objects so they cannot be directly measured using science. Morality is more like a ‘truth’ or can have a realness that makes them objective because of the way people use them. Morals only apply to people in that people have a moral obligation to each other. So, people make morals truthful and real and in that sense they are objective.

If we use the math example again, we can see this better. There is no physical aspect of math. You cannot pick up the number 2 and measure it. Yet we can make objective claims with math. We know when we see 2 objects and find another 2 on a beach that we can make 4 objects. If we wanted to share them evenly we know we would have an odd amount between 2 people. We don’t have any physical way to prove that these math equations are objectively true apart from how they apply to situations and we don’t have to be taught this.

The same with morality. If we are engaging with someone, we intuitively know that being honest and abiding by certain moral values apply to situations. We cannot dent this or try to substitute this by ignoring these values or pretending they don’t exist otherwise things break down and don’t work. Just like 2+2 doesn’t =5. You expect me to be honest when debating you, so you appeal to honesty like it is the “truth” and a real value. If you try to say that you are not making honesty real or “truth” then all interaction between us will break down into chaos.

You can no longer expect me to be honest. I could lie and make things up and misrepresent what you say, use fallacies and you have no way to dispute that. Yet you don’t and you rely on honesty like it is an objective fact. When you protest that someone is using fallacies or that what they say is wrong you are making honesty and other values real and ‘truth’ facts.

So just because a person says something is wrong, that makes it wrong? You’ve got to be kidding!

No its more than that as explained above. It is the reliance and appeal placed on certain values that are used to determine whether what is said is just a lie or wrong that makes those values facts and not just the rhetoric.

Human societies are not based right vs wrong, they are based on what is legal vs illegal; big difference. If nothing could be determined as right or wrong, as long as we can determine what is legal or illegal, we’ll be fine.

On the contrary the legal system is based on moral values and is another way people use and appeal to certain values like they are facts similar to how I explain this above. The law not to steal is based on a moral value about not taking other people’s stuff. They have a right to that stuff and taking it shows disrespect for those rights. Murder laws are the same. They are based on the moral law not to kill.

Swearing on the Bible in court that you will tell the truth is another law based on the moral of honesty. There are many more. Not all laws have a moral underpinning, but many do. Western societies have built themselves on Christian moral values. Though we have moved away from this in modern society. But it was once against the law to divorce, hence the moral law of adultery.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I said your God does not determine morality any more than I or anybody else. Morality is not defined as “in accordance to the nature of Yahweh”.

I used the Euthyphro dilemma because people want to explain God's morality in human terms. Bring God down to the way modern society thinks about morality. But if you want to use God then we should use Him in the proper way. The way the Bible explains God. Saying the Christian God does not determine morality any more than a human is a wrong analogy (a strawman). God is outside human time and space. God is morality, He created everything and there would be no morality if God did not set in motion our existence.

So, you cannot make him on the same level as human thinking. We can place morality in God's nature as the Bible says God's nature is all good. There is no wrong in Him. The Bible also says God is the first and always has existed. So, He is the ultimate stopping point for morality. Having always existed and been the ultimate stopping point means there is no greater moral source and that all other moral standards have been based on God.

stevevw · Jul 13, 2020

Speedwell said:
Not if really really don't like it.

You would have to really, really, really, really, really not like it. In fact, you would have to be rather irate. You may even begin a protest with banners and rallying cries because you hated it so much. But then that is bordering on saying the behaviour should not happen. Otherwise, why protest to stop it.

stevevw · Jul 13, 2020

Speedwell said:
Yes, you believe that to be true. But faith is a subjective state. There s no objective basis for any of it.

Faith may be subjective but the words spoken by Jesus are objective. They are there in black and white. Making an argument for objective morality based on God can also be objectively made.

But then you once said why do I make a case for objective morality and embarrass the Christian faithful like I was doing something wrong. But if faith is just a subjective view why would that matter. It would just be one subjective view that is different to another. Nother to get judgemental about. This is a good example of how people profess subjectivity but act objectively.

And?

You were trying to come up with a naturalistic account for objective morality. If morality according to naturalistic processes like evolution is only about the human mind, conscious or subconscious it is still only about what is conjured or programmed into the human mind by subjective means. So it cannot account for objective morality which needs an independent grounding outside the human mind.

No, you are condemning subjective moralists for "acting like" their morality was objective.

I have never said that anyone who chooses to only believe in subjective morality has no right to use that subjective morality. My protest was if you do then use it in a way that is consistent with subjective morality and not like it is really objective morality. Isn't that the age-old debate that there is subjective and objective morality.

That subjective is about what the subject thinks about morality and each person view is just as valid as the other. Each mind is just one variation of morality in a system of how morality worked and none were objectively wrong. So no one could really objectively condemn another minds view of morality.

Speedwell · Jul 13, 2020

stevevw said:
Faith may be subjective but the words spoken by Jesus are objective. They are there in black and white.

That the words were spoken by Jesus is a subjective opinion.

Making an argument for objective morality based on God can also be objectively made.

But there is no objective basis for belief in God.

But then you once said why do I make a case for objective morality and embarrass the Christian faithful like I was doing something wrong. But if faith is just a subjective view why would that matter. It would just be one subjective view that is different to another. Nother to get judgemental about. This is a good example of how people profess subjectivity but act objectively.

In your case you are professing objectivity but acting subjectively. You claim that objective morality exists but can only know what it is subjectively.

You were trying to come up with a naturalistic account for objective morality. If morality according to naturalistic processes like evolution is only about the human mind, conscious or subconscious it is still only about what is conjured or programmed into the human mind by subjective means. So it cannot account for objective morality which needs an independent grounding outside the human mind.

No, I was trying to come up with a naturalistic account for the content of our consciences.

stevevw · Jul 13, 2020

Speedwell said:
That the words were spoken by Jesus is a subjective opinion.

Isn't it funny how we accept the words written about other Historical figures but when it comes to one of the most important figures everything He said is disputed. The fact is one of the most poignant statements I have mentioned that Jesus claimed to be the son of God and was crucified for saying it is supported by most scholars. Other independent sources like the Jewish Talmud agree that Jesus was crucified for sedition.

We also know and have independent support that Jesus had a following and taught moral values so we have all the makings of for the basis of someone professing and teaching moral laws. We know that from the time of His crucifixion the Christian church grew rapidly and strongly. So something great happened enough that it changes the world. You just don't get that with most historical figures and when you do people are happy enough to accept that what is written is true.

If we are fair and apply the same measures as we do for other historical figures then there is no reason to think that what is written about Jesus is false. We can dispute that the supernatural did not happen and that seems to be the main reason why people dispute Jesus. But there is no reason that we should dispute what is actually written.

But there is no objective basis for belief in God.

What do you mean. There is plenty of evidence for belief in God. The fact that belief in Jesus changed the world and we base our civilization on this and that millions of people have changed their life or died for their faith is enough to prove that belief in God is real.

In your case you are professing objectivity but acting subjectively. You claim that objective morality exists but can only know what it is subjectively.

Is that your subjective opinion lol. How do you know that I only know morality subjectively? The fact that I am basing my morality on the Bible and not my personal views show that I am choosing an objective source. When people adhere to the laws of a society they are adhering to an objective standard. It isn't their personal view as people often break the law. The same with my moral views. It is a standard outside themselves that they are choosing to follow.

No, I was trying to come up with a naturalistic account for the content of our consciences.

How do you mean a naturalistic account? Under an atheist worldview as soon as you appeal to the mind, the physical organ is appealing to subjectivity no matter how you try to rationalize it naturally. That's because its a close system and only operates based on physical and mental dimensions. Everything is filtered through the mind and based on the way the brain is connected to our senses which means it will be subjective.

You can only appeal to a naturalistic source of objective morality by something that comes from outside the mind and into the mind. So God put his moral laws in our mind so that we know them is an objective source. Saying that there is some sort of natural moral law somewhere out there in the cosmos is another way some have used.[/quote][/quote]

Atheism and nihilism

Is atheism inherently nihilistic?

Yes

No

Dragonsworn

inquisitive

Proud Citizen of Moralton

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

re Member

Newbie

re Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency