Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Atheism and nihilism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zippy2006" data-source="post: 75157036" data-attributes="member: 342410"><p>What if you appeal to emotions they have already associated? They have already associated insecurity with fear, and you are simply providing a way to assuage their fear by providing security. You're just an entrepreneur. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it could be more reasonable. Surely you believe that some premises are stronger and some are weaker, and that it's not simply a matter of binary truth and falsity? This is pretty important in the moral realm where you are required to balance competing interests, such as liberty, equality, productivity, safety, etc.</p><p></p><p>It also comes up when you are comparing two arguments that seem to be sound but have contradictory conclusions. Suppose you either can't or don't have time to ferret out falsity. How would you weigh the two conclusions against one another? Hopefully by the strength of the premises and inferences. You can even see this in systems. For example, in the way that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics contradict each other, and yet each system seems sound.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well you've never been very interested in following my moral authority. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> No, the question is whether <em>you</em> ought to do what <em>you</em> desire. Granted, "desire" is an ambiguous term in that it could be applied to the sense appetite or the intellectual appetite (we have spontaneous sexual desires as well as highly robust and thought-out intellectual desires). I think you have to deal with the more difficult intellectual desire if you want to sweep away all desire as normative. Certainly I don't think we should act on every small bodily or emotional inclination.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Haha, I'm not trying to trick you. I want you to actually think about whether he should. What's the difference between saying you want and saying you should get? It seems to me that the only difference is ability. If we want something and we have the ability to get it then we will get it. The concept of "wanting" is already normative; the "should" is already built in.</p><p></p><p>Happiness is also intrinsically normative. You basically said, "He should get it," but with different normative language. If you convince someone that something will make them happier, then you've already convinced them that they should get it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I agree that questioning whether you should eat the hamburger you want to eat isn't "boilerplate." In fact it's downright nonconformist. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="^_^" title="Kawaii ^_^" data-shortname="^_^" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well why <em>should</em> truth and desire be consistent with one another!? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> Say more, though.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So perhaps the universally held value is universal because it is grounded in objective realities. That would explain a whole lot.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First, I'm not so sure about robbing and pillaging in relation to dopamine, but I suppose adrenaline is similar. Second, happiness is a broader concept than mere sense pleasure. Pleasure can cause happiness, but so can other things. "<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2001.htm#article5" target="_blank">For Augustine says</a> (De Civ. Dei xix, 1) that some held man's last end to consist in four things, viz. 'in pleasure, repose, the gifts of nature, and virtue.'" Happiness isn't just pleasure and it isn't just a drug. As Aquinas says, happiness is acquiring your true goal or goals. For example, if you are working all day and are looking forward to reclining and taking a nap, the attainment of that repose will bring with it happiness even without your dopamine.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you meant to say that there is an opening between "I desire this" and "I should fulfill this desire." Sort of. First, are we agreed that there is no opening between "This is true," and "I should believe this"? And between "This will make me happy," and "I should seek this"? I don't think there is any opening between those, which gets at some of the previous comments.</p><p></p><p>Regarding desire, you're right that there is a gap between desiring and acting on that desire (to try to satisfy it). We can deliberate about whether the desire is worth pursuing, and also about how to pursue it, but desire itself is intrinsically ordered towards fulfillment. To put it succinctly: unfulfilled desire is bad. That doesn't mean we should fulfill every desire, for we have competing goals and desires. Buddhists even desire to be rid of all desire, paradoxically enough.</p><p></p><p>But post-deliberation desires--intellectual desires--are the sorts of things that we really should try to fulfill. Or better put, they are the things that we really do try to fulfill. I don't say that you should try to fulfill every desire, but I say that you do try to fulfill your very highest desires. I don't think there is any "gap" or "opening" with the normativity regarding our highest desires.</p><p></p><p>It's also worth noting that happiness and desire are very closely related. Happiness is, by definition, what all men desire. If something will make us happy then it is desirable and we should pursue it. It is also <em>good</em>. This begins to bring us full-circle to my <a href="https://www.christianforums.com/threads/atheism-and-nihilism.8165720/page-15#post-75130165" target="_blank">first post</a> (I think Philo's biggest mistake was identifying goodness with functionality).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zippy2006, post: 75157036, member: 342410"] What if you appeal to emotions they have already associated? They have already associated insecurity with fear, and you are simply providing a way to assuage their fear by providing security. You're just an entrepreneur. ;) I think it could be more reasonable. Surely you believe that some premises are stronger and some are weaker, and that it's not simply a matter of binary truth and falsity? This is pretty important in the moral realm where you are required to balance competing interests, such as liberty, equality, productivity, safety, etc. It also comes up when you are comparing two arguments that seem to be sound but have contradictory conclusions. Suppose you either can't or don't have time to ferret out falsity. How would you weigh the two conclusions against one another? Hopefully by the strength of the premises and inferences. You can even see this in systems. For example, in the way that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics contradict each other, and yet each system seems sound. Well you've never been very interested in following my moral authority. :P No, the question is whether [I]you[/I] ought to do what [I]you[/I] desire. Granted, "desire" is an ambiguous term in that it could be applied to the sense appetite or the intellectual appetite (we have spontaneous sexual desires as well as highly robust and thought-out intellectual desires). I think you have to deal with the more difficult intellectual desire if you want to sweep away all desire as normative. Certainly I don't think we should act on every small bodily or emotional inclination. Haha, I'm not trying to trick you. I want you to actually think about whether he should. What's the difference between saying you want and saying you should get? It seems to me that the only difference is ability. If we want something and we have the ability to get it then we will get it. The concept of "wanting" is already normative; the "should" is already built in. Happiness is also intrinsically normative. You basically said, "He should get it," but with different normative language. If you convince someone that something will make them happier, then you've already convinced them that they should get it. No, I agree that questioning whether you should eat the hamburger you want to eat isn't "boilerplate." In fact it's downright nonconformist. :D ^_^ Well why [I]should[/I] truth and desire be consistent with one another!? :P Say more, though. So perhaps the universally held value is universal because it is grounded in objective realities. That would explain a whole lot. First, I'm not so sure about robbing and pillaging in relation to dopamine, but I suppose adrenaline is similar. Second, happiness is a broader concept than mere sense pleasure. Pleasure can cause happiness, but so can other things. "[URL='https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2001.htm#article5']For Augustine says[/URL] (De Civ. Dei xix, 1) that some held man's last end to consist in four things, viz. 'in pleasure, repose, the gifts of nature, and virtue.'" Happiness isn't just pleasure and it isn't just a drug. As Aquinas says, happiness is acquiring your true goal or goals. For example, if you are working all day and are looking forward to reclining and taking a nap, the attainment of that repose will bring with it happiness even without your dopamine. I think you meant to say that there is an opening between "I desire this" and "I should fulfill this desire." Sort of. First, are we agreed that there is no opening between "This is true," and "I should believe this"? And between "This will make me happy," and "I should seek this"? I don't think there is any opening between those, which gets at some of the previous comments. Regarding desire, you're right that there is a gap between desiring and acting on that desire (to try to satisfy it). We can deliberate about whether the desire is worth pursuing, and also about how to pursue it, but desire itself is intrinsically ordered towards fulfillment. To put it succinctly: unfulfilled desire is bad. That doesn't mean we should fulfill every desire, for we have competing goals and desires. Buddhists even desire to be rid of all desire, paradoxically enough. But post-deliberation desires--intellectual desires--are the sorts of things that we really should try to fulfill. Or better put, they are the things that we really do try to fulfill. I don't say that you should try to fulfill every desire, but I say that you do try to fulfill your very highest desires. I don't think there is any "gap" or "opening" with the normativity regarding our highest desires. It's also worth noting that happiness and desire are very closely related. Happiness is, by definition, what all men desire. If something will make us happy then it is desirable and we should pursue it. It is also [I]good[/I]. This begins to bring us full-circle to my [URL='https://www.christianforums.com/threads/atheism-and-nihilism.8165720/page-15#post-75130165']first post[/URL] (I think Philo's biggest mistake was identifying goodness with functionality). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Atheism and nihilism
Top
Bottom