Atheism and nihilism

[Speedwell]

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. 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.

If there is an objective source for belief in a transcendent being, why do people come to so many different conclusions about it?

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.

I didn't think you agreed with that. According to you socially determined moral precepts must be subjective because they are not dictated by a transcendent being.

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.

Including your belief that the Bible is an objective source.

You can only appeal to a naturalistic source of objective morality

According to you objective morality cannot have a naturalistic source--it can only be the dictate of a transcendent being.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Like I said, a gap in responses is always fine. It's the terse responses that ignore the majority of a post that make me suspect a lack of interest. If you were planning to get to the rest at some later time, let me know. If you were never intending to get to the rest, well that will be a problem for me.

Well, on one hand, I can understand your gripe. But on the other hand, you'll have to understand what I see in all of this: What I see are are thousand nuanced partitions of definition, all of which require half a lifetime of vetting. Besides that, since there are so many nuances we could explore, there'll never be an end to the questions that any one of us can ask, and if someone thinks he just HAS to get to the end before making a decision about values, then discussion on a forum becomes almost a moot point. Because who would really want to waste time and have their dearest questions vetted out on a public forum ... Who can field that task? Furthermore, I often wonder how many of you skeptics really and truly are attempting to survey, research and look for various answers that might exist in the minds of more developed thinkers. Or do you think that skeptics just show up here on CF because they don't intend on doing any deep academic thinking but rather to have a ball in plying Christians with a thousand questions---some unanswerable---and thereby giving Christians hell?

I could be wrong, but so much of the time, the demands in conversation that skeptics put forward seems to me be tinged with facetious intent because, well, they don't really think there could be any answers and by golly, why look for them since it's God's responsibility to supply every jot and tittle.



What makes justice and each of these things good? You said that altruism is good because a person in need might benefit. So is a need being fulfilled good? And that's what makes food, and sex, and healing good; they all are instances of a need being fulfilled? I do take note that only safe sex with fidelity within a marriage is good. That one looks pretty complicated. Now I want to ask why fidelity is good and why married sex is good. But also, what about justice? It doesn't seem to fit in with the others. What makes justice good?[/QUOTE]

Food? Food is self-evident as to it's 'goodness' as it lends itself to the necessities of organic survival. We can start there. Do we want to say that non-survival is a 'good thing' in whatever axiological and ontological sense we might conceive of it? I wouldn't. Yet, I'd say that it's a good thing not simply to be alive, surviving day after day in a crappy, mixed-up world, but to find some meaning and purpose in it all.

 

[Moral Orel]

But if that's the case then why bother trying to change other peoples views to what you desire them to be.

Have you ever been listening to the radio, and when the station you're listening to goes to a commercial break, you change the station because you like music and you don't like commercials? Same thing.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

Not quite; I'm trying to distinguish between subjectively wrong and objectively wrong. Subjectively wrong is feeling wrong; objectively wrong is the ability to demonstrate as wrong.

 

[durangodawood]

Not quite; I'm trying to distinguish between subjectively wrong and objectively wrong. Subjectively wrong is feeling wrong; objectively wrong is the ability to demonstrate as wrong.

And you think we cant demonstrate that something is "wrong", correct?

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

But they recognize they are unable to demonstrate an action as right or wrong.

I think the person expressing the subjective view can honestly believe that a moral act is demonstrated as right and wrong.

No. A person expressing the subjective view probably knows what it means by subjective morality and understands moral issues cannot be demonstrated.

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.

Because belief is all that is necessary to value an act as right or wrong; proof is not necessary.

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.

As you can see from the below definition, it has nothing to do with being based in something beyond human views and opinions.
Definition of MORALITY

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.

As you can see from the below definition, that which is objective is based on observable facts. IOW that which is objective is demonstrable.
Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
It sounds like what you are mistaking absolute morality with objective morality.

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.

My math example was not about how many ways we can arrive at 2, it was about 1+1 will always equal 2.

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.

I take this to mean you cannot site any objective facts that say killing is wrong. The reason you cannot do this is because morality is not objective.

I will respond to the rest of your post later

 

[Ken-1122]

And you think we cant demonstrate that something is "wrong", correct?

Correct.

 

[durangodawood]

Correct.

Ok. So when you deny we can demonstrate that something is wrong, what precisely do you mean by "wrong"?

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

The reliance and appeal a person uses has nothing to do with whether or not he is telling the truth.

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.

I agree some laws are based on moral values and others are not, but as I said before, even if we assumed morality did not exist, as long as we have laws, we will be all right.

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.

I’ve never understood the belief that western societies were built on Christian moral values. In order for a moral value to be christian, it could not have existed prior to Christianity. All the moral values I know of that this country may have been built on were around long before Christianity. So which moral values do you speak of?

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.

But that is only true for you and those who agree with your Christian beliefs. How would that be different if those who agree with my moral beliefs claimed I determine morality?

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok. So when you deny we can demonstrate that something is wrong, what precisely do you mean by "wrong"?

Not in accordance with that which is morally right or morally good.
Definition of wrong | Dictionary.com

 

[durangodawood]

Not in accordance with that which is morally right or morally good.
Definition of wrong | Dictionary.com

Looks like you're just pushing the problem off onto another word. Basically you're saying wrong means morally wrong. That doesn't really help us.

I really want to know, what is this sense of "wrong" that we cannot prove?

I think what you really mean is we can't prove something is wrong according to some absolute universal sort of God revealed standard. If Im mistaken, then please clear up what you do mean by morally wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think what you really mean is we can't prove something is wrong according to some absolute universal sort of God revealed standard.

Yes! That is the point I've been making all along.

 

[Moral Orel]

Food? Food is self-evident as to it's 'goodness' as it lends itself to the necessities of organic survival.

I took notice that you said a few things were good because they fulfilled a need, food being one of them.

Yet, I'd say that it's a good thing not simply to be alive, surviving day after day in a crappy, mixed-up world, but to find some meaning and purpose in it all.

Are you saying that life in and of itself isn't good unless there's meaning and purpose? If so, then food and other things that fulfill needs for continued life are only good in that they allow us to find/fulfill some meaning and purpose. Does that sound right? Are there perhaps other things to be found in life that are good even if meaning and purpose are absent?

Also, why are meaning and purpose good?

 

[stevevw]

If there is an objective source for belief in a transcendent being, why do people come to so many different conclusions about it?

You can look at this two ways. Why do so many people look for some transcendent being in the first place for the source of objective morality? The fact that people believe there is something beyond themselves shows that there is something in us that knows there is something beyond what we see that is responsible for what we see. That what we see is not just the result of some naturalistic process.

But I don't think there is that much difference in the transcendent being anyway. The 3 biggest religions basically believe in the same God. Many of the others have elements of that God in their beliefs. It seems understandable that if there was one transcendent being that some people are going to put their own twist on it. Just because they do doesn't mean that this negates there being one true transcendent being.

I didn't think you agreed with that. According to you socially determined moral precepts must be subjective because they are not dictated by a transcendent being.

They are because they are still determined by a human mind. But as I have said that those who support subjective morality act like morality is objective. Therefore they may be acting objectively but calling it subjective. The simple fact is whether it is derived from a subjective mind or not people apply those moral standards like they are objective.

By making the laws and imposing them on everyone despite peoples subjective views seem objective to me. They are saying your personal view doesn't matter you have to adhere and follow these moral standards because they are the 'truth' above all other views.

Including your belief that the Bible is an objective source.

No, it's different. Everything you appeal to in the mind is within the mind which can only come from the subjective mind. So the mind is using the mind as its source. In other words, a human is using a part of themselves as the source of morality. Whereas I and other Christians are looking outside the mind to something else which is God in that Bible.

The God of that Bible is making a claim which we have to deal with in saying I am not part of your mind, I created your mind, I am the moral values you seek. This takes things into another debate about God, and that's is why we have arguments for God based on morality and other things like ontology.

According to you objective morality cannot have a naturalistic source--it can only be the dictate of a transcendent being.

Yes, that's right because morals are personal and can only apply to people so if the source is beyond humans it has to be a personal transcendent being. But non-theists try to use science as we are most familiar with sourcing objectivity in physical objects or laws. I am just saying that even if we wanted to use some natural law it is still beyond the human mind. It is something that can ground morality independently. Though I disagree that naturalistic sources are the proper source for morality as they are not personal.

 

[stevevw]

Have you ever been listening to the radio, and when the station you're listening to goes to a commercial break, you change the station because you like music and you don't like commercials? Same thing.

But this is a good example of what I am talking about in that desires and "likes and dislikes' don't really account for morality. That's because people also don't bother to change the station. They cannot be bothered and will lay there and put up with it. Then after a moment, they can then think OK this ain't so bad it has some interest. Feeling that you wanted to hear music can be a fleeting thing and our desires can change.

But when it comes to moral wrongs we will not tolerate it. We will get up and protest, especially when it happens to us. We demand that it stops, we want to change what is happening and to put some measures in place to stop moral wrong happening.

In fact from what I have been seeing in recent times is that people are now almost forming possies and movements to get those who do wrong with movements like MeTo, Shaming, virtue signaling on social media. They attack anyone who they think has behaved wrongly to the point where they want to destroy them.

 

[stevevw]

But they recognize they are unable to demonstrate an action as right or wrong.

Well this is the question where the line gets blurred IMO. I would have thought under subjective morality that a person would know and understand that their moral view is only a view of themselves. But as I keep saying people act like its more than that. When morals are applied to real-life situations they become more than just opinions about right and wrong. People use their views like they are proclaiming a 'truth' out into the world. I am saying because of this that makes morality a 'truth' and real and that makes them objective.

No. A person expressing the subjective view probably knows what it means by subjective morality and understands moral issues cannot be demonstrated.

What do you mean demonstrated? You cannot expect something like morality to be demonstrated like in a scientific test. The fact that they demonstrate morality by making them the "truth' and 'real' is the demonstration that makes them objective. Put it this way, you expect me to be honest in our debate.

You are appealing to honesty as a moral value. You need honesty and cannot make it unreal by sating there is no such thing as the moral value of honesty if you want any rationality and for our debate to make sense. So whether you profess that morals are subjective or not you make honesty objectively real and a 'truth'. Try and act like honesty is just subjective in our debate and see where it gets you.

Because belief is all that is necessary to value an act as right or wrong; proof is not necessary.

Yes but that belief only applies to yourself, the person expressing the moral values. They can believe whatever they want within themselves. They can believe that what a person did something morally wrong. But the moment they then take that belief from within them and try to apply that it to the situation or another person it doesn't work. That is when it clashes with other peoples beliefs who are different.

Who is then right outside the person and in that real-life situation. How do they determine who is right? It would be just one persons belief against another. Yet what we continue to see is that people do believe and act like they personal morals are true for everyone in the way they want others to stop what they are doing and how they appeal to certain moral values like they are real and "truth".

As you can see from the below definition, it has nothing to do with being based in something beyond human views and opinions.
Definition of MORALITY
As you can see from the below definition, that which is objective is based on observable facts. IOW that which is objective is demonstrable.
Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So if we were to demonstrate objective morality how do we demonstrate this. I think you are mistakenly using the scientific method for measuring morality which is impossible. Morality is based in metaphysics so there is no material aspect to measure. Yet many philosophers agree that we can measure objective morality.

It sounds like what you are mistaking absolute morality with objective morality.

Absolute morality is different from objective morality. Absolute morality is when the moral value applies regardless of the relative context. It applies more to relative morality which is the opposite. Whereas objective and subjective are associated together. Subjective from the subject (humans) and objective outside the subject. It doesn't have to be a physical source. Like we said math and laws can be objective fact.

My math example was not about how many ways we can arrive at 2, it was about 1+1 will always equal 2.

Yes and yet it is still an objective fact despite there being no physical thing to pick up and measure. The same as natural laws or objective morals. The example of honesty being something that cannot be changed and must apply in human debate/interaction is the same. You cannot change the fact that we need the honesty to make it work.

The moment you take it away it becomes like 2+2=5. But when you inject it into our debate it works fine and adds up. It is an objective fact that honesty is a real and truth-value needed for us to engage in debate coherently and rationally.

I take this to mean you cannot site any objective facts that say killing is wrong. The reason you cannot do this is because morality is not objective.

Of course, I can. Here is an objective moral fact. Killing a baby for fun is morally wrong. You don't have to have a physical thing to measure. What about when a court determines that someone has committed murder. They present the evidence and show that the person has taken a life for no justified reason. They then punish that person showing that the act was wrong. This is based on an objective fact according to that system that killing is wrong. Someone cannot stand up and say but in my subjective killing is morally OK.

I will respond to the rest of your post later

OK[/quote]

 

[stevevw]

The reliance and appeal a person uses has nothing to do with whether or not he is telling the truth.

It isn't about the one person telling the truth. It is about the fact that the appeal to a certain value and the way it is being used and relied upon makes it real. Makes it a fact that has to be real and the 'truth' and cannot be seen in any other way whether you or I think so or not. We have no choice that it is the 'truth'. Just like we have no choice that 2+2=4.

I agree some laws are based on moral values and others are not, but as I said before, even if we assumed morality did not exist, as long as we have laws, we will be all right.

But if some laws are built on morals and some laws are objective then that follows that some morals are objective.

I’ve never understood the belief that western societies were built on Christian moral values. In order for a moral value to be Christian, it could not have existed prior to Christianity. All the moral values I know of that this country may have been built on were around long before Christianity. So which moral values do you speak of?

I am speaking about how western nations used specific Christian values like don't commit adultery, don't have sex outside marriage, abortion is wrong, same-sex relationships were morally wrong. Though some of the main morals like don't steal or Kill are similar to other religions western societies specifically chose Christian values because they were primarily Christian.

It is only in the last few decades that we have moved away from these Christian values though we still have some as with our legal system in swearing on the Bible, prayers before parliament, the celebration of Easter, and Christmas this is also becoming more commercialized. WE still measure time/history with BC and AD.

But that is only true for you and those who agree with your Christian beliefs. How would that be different if those who agree with my moral beliefs claimed I determine morality?

But it is non-believers who bring up God and try to make Him what they think He is. By doing that they have accepted that there is a God for the sake of the debate. Otherwise why even bother talking about Him if they believe He is not real. They put descriptions on Him like He is something real.

So all I am saying that if you want to do that then go to the source that will tell you the proper understanding of who God is before trying to put your own understanding on Him or just don't by into the debate at all.

It's the same when people say God is evil. They want to choose what they understand God is based on what they have read on some atheist website. They are calling Him evil like He is real. So, therefore, find out what He is like from the book that describes Him.

 

[Speedwell]

They are because they are still determined by a human mind. But as I have said that those who support subjective morality act like morality is objective. Therefore they may be acting objectively but calling it subjective. The simple fact is whether it is derived from a subjective mind or not people apply those moral standards like they are objective.

By making the laws and imposing them on everyone despite peoples subjective views seem objective to me. They are saying your personal view doesn't matter you have to adhere and follow these moral standards because they are the 'truth' above all other views.

No, they are not saying that. They are saying "these are the moral values our society upholds. If you want to participate in our society these are the moral precepts you must follow." No claim of moral objectivity is being made.

No, it's different. Everything you appeal to in the mind is within the mind which can only come from the subjective mind. So the mind is using the mind as its source. In other words, a human is using a part of themselves as the source of morality. Whereas I and other Christians are looking outside the mind to something else which is God in that Bible.

The "God in that Bible" is a mental impression you and other Christians have formed from reading an arbitrary collection of ancient religious texts. There is nothing objective about it.

 

[Moral Orel]

But this is a good example of what I am talking about in that desires and "likes and dislikes' don't really account for morality. That's because people also don't bother to change the station. They cannot be bothered and will lay there and put up with it. Then after a moment, they can then think OK this ain't so bad it has some interest. Feeling that you wanted to hear music can be a fleeting thing and our desires can change.

But when it comes to moral wrongs we will not tolerate it. We will get up and protest, especially when it happens to us. We demand that it stops, we want to change what is happening and to put some measures in place to stop moral wrong happening.

In fact from what I have been seeing in recent times is that people are now almost forming possies and movements to get those who do wrong with movements like MeTo, Shaming, virtue signaling on social media. They attack anyone who they think has behaved wrongly to the point where they want to destroy them.

No, it's a great metaphor for morality in a nutshell. People change the station because they don't like what they're hearing. Sometimes the radio plays a song I love so I want to hear more; sometimes it plays a song I despise so I either change the station or turn it off. If I don't like it much, but I know there aren't any other radio stations that play the genres of music I like, then I won't bother to change it because I don't expect my efforts to produce the change I want. Sometimes, even if I dislike a song, I don't dislike it enough to care enough to do anything about it.

People attempt to affect change in human behavior because they don't like what they're experiencing. Sometimes people act in ways that I like so I encourage people to act that way more; sometimes people act in ways I don't like so I discourage people from acting that way more, or force people to stop acting in ways I don't like. If I don't like some behavior but I don't believe I can affect any change, then I'll tolerate it because I don't expect my efforts to produce results. Sometimes, even if I dislike some behavior, I don't dislike it enough to care enough to do anything about it.

The amount of effort people put into changing things is proportional to how strongly they feel about that thing. If someone tries to do something I hate, I will attempt to stop them with force. If they do something I find annoying, I'll probably ignore it. When people feel strongly enough about something, they'll think they're correct even when they're not.

 

[zippy2006]

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.

Sure. One of my basic criticisms which will probably come up later is that you try to divorce emotion from reason, whereas I would say that they are closely intertwined. Of course this ultimately depends on the extent to which certain desires are universal.

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.

I certainly agree with this, though I'm not sure how it would throw a wrench in your system. If you were arguing that despair is a counterexample to the idea that desire is ordered to fulfillment then this would affect that argument, but it doesn't strike me as having far-reaching implications.

The thing I want to draw out of it is the idea that a despairing, desireless state is a pathological state. The normal human state includes desires, even desires as simple as an appetite for food.

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

And they might.

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".

The claim of equivalence that I made is as follows, "If you tell someone, 'Doing this will make you happier than not doing it,' you are saying, 'You should do this.'" I am happy with the "pursuit" proposition. What's key is that the desires we in fact have propel us to pursuit and action.

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

I tend to think it does, either short term or long term. I suppose deontology and acting for the common good both raise difficult issues. For example, refusing to lie in any circumstance, and a willingness to die for your country in combat. My initial response would be that in the first example the person places a high value on truth and honesty, and would be unhappy living without integrity. In the second example the happiness of the country is deemed more important than personal happiness. The second case is more difficult, but the desire-fulfillment dynamic still obtains.

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.

There are two issues here. The first issue is that I do not believe it is ultimately based on "the happiness they derive from disagreeing," even if contrariety can be addictive in its own way. In many such cases you have opposed premises. They are assenting to what they believe to be divine revelation, which for them outweighs scientific evidence.

They second issue is that they may simply not be seeking the truth. People who don't seek the truth don't see the truth, and you can't make them see it because they aren't seeking it, but if they did see it they would believe it. ..Or so I think. Here is an excerpt from this past Sunday's readings, after the apostles ask Jesus why he speaks in parables:

"This is why I speak to them in parables, because
they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.
Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says:
You shall indeed hear but not understand,
you shall indeed look but never see.
Gross is the heart of this people,
they will hardly hear with their ears,
they have closed their eyes,
lest they see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their hearts and be converted,
and I heal them."​

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.

Haha, well maybe I should accept your premise for the sake of argument. Maybe I will if worse comes to worst.

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.

Thanks for shortening the conversation, I appreciate it. It seems fine to me but I may come back to certain things if they become pertinent.

I suppose we should decide on what exactly it is that we are disagreeing about. Earlier I said:

You seem to want to accept Hume's dichotomy and also do away with "ought" altogether,...

That is, you accept the is-ought dichotomy, you believe there are no universal "oughts," you think emotion is arbitrary and usually enters argument in the form of manipulation, etc. Is that accurate? How would you describe our disagreement?

I do think we still need to talk about this:

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.e. Final causality)