How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Because it's my position that if no harm has been done then nothing immoral has occured.

This is the main impasse we always reach here. Because of reciprocal altruism you would hold that no harm being done justifies the premise that if the action does no harm then it is moral. Though this might seem like a basis on which to reason and judge behaviours by I think it's not so much because such a reason is inherently subjective. What would be considered harm by one person is considered not to be harm by another and if you were to say that the basis is reciprocal altruism and not what these people think about harm, you have just made an objective standard and made morality not relative (because you believe that this standard is correct & you measure moral claims according to it). Now just because you believe something is true but ultimately it's your opinion about the matter, it doesn't mean that the truth is subjective. It just means you disagree about what the truth is, just like any other truth claim. But in order to weigh evidence about what is true you pressuppose the truth of the thing that makes the evidence, evidence. Or rather what makes it true that x is evidence. Part of my problem (that huge thread I made) is that I believe that there's no justification for the presupposition of what makes something morally true or authoritative within an evolutionary framework, that evolutionary framework which relies upon Naturalism/Materialism/Empiricism to validate truth claims or make things evidence.

However back to the original point. Ultimately if the basis for moral judgement remains inherently personal opinion on what is harm and what is not then the basis of reciprocal altruism is in the end made redundant or irrelevant because the basis of the judgement between behaviours is what each individual person considers to be harm and not what actions are considered to be reciprocal altruism.

My point of disagreement is that under an evolutionary framework which provides the basis of reciprocal altruism, the description of behaviour or why we do what we do does not necessitate a should. So if this couple wanted to commit incest reciprocal altruism says that we evolved to do x or y but it does not mean that we should or should not do x or y. Because morality is inherently subjective within this paradigm you can do whatever you want and what one person believes is equally as valid because there is no authoritative should provided by any basis that is naturalistic in it's genesis of behaviour. Without a transcendent agent to give a should there's no justification for morality apart from personal preference (what is harmful & what's not). Now we can disagree upon the transcendent agent or the validity of Christianity or Monotheism (anything which doesn't have God as a self existent agent suffers from the infinite regress of causality) and all of that's fine, but the fact remains if we're left with solely biology as the genesis for our behaviour then all behaviour is ultimately equal in it's moral actions, whether they be evil or good. This is because good and evil don't exist within the paradigm, all that exists is descriptions of behaviours or why we do what we do. There is no should.

Now if this is true and it is personal preference that is the arbiter of what is moral or not (what is harmful & what's not) then we reach the problems presented in what I'm calling now: That huge thread I made

I assume the following exchange was pure Hollywood:

"Then we shall fight in the shade!"

Surprisingly not!: Dienekes - Wikipedia The Spartans were a hardcore bunch.

P.S Sorry for the essay, don't feel like you have to respond to it all. Or at all. We can always agree to disagree for now, ruminate on it and return later. I'm almost certain the topic will come up again. Besides a new season of Survivor starts tonight! Time to pick 2-3 favourites to win the series and watch them all get voted off immediately .

[Edit: Phrasing & the deletion of copious commas]

 

[Bradskii]

This is the main impasse we always reach here. Because of reciprocal altruism you would hold that no harm being done justifies the premise that if the action does no harm then it is moral. Though this might seem like a basis on which to reason and judge behaviours by I think it's not so much because such a reason is inherently subjective.

Harm and reciprocal altruism are two different aspects of morality.

I can't see any way that harm cannot be determined. Or at least that arguments can be put forward to support whether it has or hasn't been done. This aligns with what Sam Harris has proposed a few times. Not least in his book The Moral Landscape. And briefly in this TED talk:

. Surely it is not beyond us to determine that a given act is detrimental to the well being of an individual or of society as a whole. Do those sometimes conflict? Yes, of course. But again, it's not beyond us to make reasonable arguments to support whether we should consider society or the individual in specific cases.

And that's the real heart of the matter - the fact that there are an infinite number of cases that we each need to consider in its own right.

As regards reciprocal altruism, that, with our ability to empathise, is our conscience if you like. It's why we don't always look after ourselves to the detriment of others. It's why we feel pride and shame. Why we help those who have fallen. Why we feed the hungry. Why you pull over if you see an accident. But none of that in any way dictates what we should do. That's up to us individually.

 

[FireDragon76]

Maybe. But let's see if he'll back you up in agreeing with you that what "seems to be a side note" actually was merely meant to be just that and nothing more.

If he can do that, then I can offer an apology to you. Otherwise, he makes it sound as if it hadn't been for the leading of Secularists, Christians would never make "better" ethical evaluations and/or judgments at any time in history, past or present.

Secularists are really sparring with Evangelical Christian Fundamentalism, and assuming that's the only way to be a Christian in the world, even though Fundamentalism itself is an historically conditioned phenomenon and is not essential to Christianity.

Meanwhile, we are entering an era of emergent Integral and Metamodern thought, where both modes of thinking have been transcended for some time. The kind of Positivism and Verificationism that the Fundamentalist and Positivists assume to be the cutting edge of thought, were abandoned decades ago by serious intellectuals.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Secularists are really sparring with Evangelical Christian Fundamentalism, and assuming that's the only way to be a Christian in the world, even though Fundamentalism itself is an historically conditioned phenomenon and is not essential to Christianity.

Meanwhile, we are entering an era of emergent Integral and Metamodern thought, where both modes of thinking have been transcended for some time. The kind of Positivism and Verificationism that the Fundamentalist and Positivists assume to be the cutting edge of thought, were abandoned decades ago by serious intellectuals.

Yes. I agree. And this would partially explain both the political and person centered despondency we see expressed by "both" sides (except by those of us who are outside of both of those respective epistemological and axiological boxes).

So, there are a few folks like me (and maybe you) who want to engage ALL issues on ALL levels, while other folks offer not much more than the 'face-palm' as a form of discourse, with lots of thrown accusation, leading questions and loaded language.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is the main impasse we always reach here. Because of reciprocal altruism you would hold that no harm being done justifies the premise that if the action does no harm then it is moral. Though this might seem like a basis on which to reason and judge behaviours by I think it's not so much because such a reason is inherently subjective. What would be considered harm by one person is considered not to be harm by another and if you were to say that the basis is reciprocal altruism and not what these people think about harm, you have just made an objective standard and made morality not relative (because you believe that this standard is correct & you measure moral claims according to it). Now just because you believe something is true but ultimately it's your opinion about the matter, it doesn't mean that the truth is subjective. It just means you disagree about what the truth is, just like any other truth claim. But in order to weigh evidence about what is true you pressuppose the truth of the thing that makes the evidence, evidence. Or rather what makes it true that x is evidence. Part of my problem (that huge thread I made) is that I believe that there's no justification for the presupposition of what makes something morally true or authoritative within an evolutionary framework, that evolutionary framework which relies upon Naturalism/Materialism/Empiricism to validate truth claims or make things evidence.

However back to the original point. Ultimately if the basis for moral judgement remains inherently personal opinion on what is harm and what is not then the basis of reciprocal altruism is in the end made redundant or irrelevant because the basis of the judgement between behaviours is what each individual person considers to be harm and not what actions are considered to be reciprocal altruism.

My point of disagreement is that under an evolutionary framework which provides the basis of reciprocal altruism, the description of behaviour or why we do what we do does not necessitate a should. So if this couple wanted to commit incest reciprocal altruism says that we evolved to do x or y but it does not mean that we should or should not do x or y. Because morality is inherently subjective within this paradigm you can do whatever you want and what one person believes is equally as valid because there is no authoritative should provided by any basis that is naturalistic in it's genesis of behaviour. Without a transcendent agent to give a should there's no justification for morality apart from personal preference (what is harmful & what's not). Now we can disagree upon the transcendent agent or the validity of Christianity or Monotheism (anything which doesn't have God as a self existent agent suffers from the infinite regress of causality) and all of that's fine, but the fact remains if we're left with solely biology as the genesis for our behaviour then all behaviour is ultimately equal in it's moral actions, whether they be evil or good. This is because good and evil don't exist within the paradigm, all that exists is descriptions of behaviours or why we do what we do. There is no should.

Now if this is true and it is personal preference that is the arbiter of what is moral or not (what is harmful & what's not) then we reach the problems presented in what I'm calling now: That huge thread I made


Surprisingly not!: Dienekes - Wikipedia The Spartans were a hardcore bunch.

P.S Sorry for the essay, don't feel like you have to respond to it all. Or at all. We can always agree to disagree for now, ruminate on it and return later. I'm almost certain the topic will come up again. Besides a new season of Survivor starts tonight! Time to pick 2-3 favourites to win the series and watch them all get voted off immediately .

[Edit: Phrasing & the deletion of copious commas]

The basis for harm can be understood through understanding teleology. Killing is wrong because it prevents a morally significant and conscious being from living and fulfilling its telos or full flourishing.

The problem from the Modern mindset is that it doesn't see teological or final causes, only material causes. But through an Integral or Metamodern perspective that transcends the previous perspectives, one can understand that there are indeed teleological causes at work in the Universe. It's just more sophisticated than the older teleology of the scholastics like Aquinas.

Now, what does this have to do with defending the legitimacy of religion? Religion is a way for humans to express their place in the Cosmos through an attitude of reverence, awe, and participation in a sacred reality. It is not necessarily opposed to science or logic, but recognizes the limitations of instrumental logic of the Enlightenment.

 

[Astrid]

If there's no objective standard then you can't condemn behaviour, only say that it's different. That leaves the thorny issue of how law courts justify legislation that encourages and condemns moral behaviours, I don't know how they weigh evidence for one position or another without a standard on which to do so.


Ok no worries . Have a safe trip and I hope your appointment goes well . God bless.

Why did I say "appointment"?
I meant meeting.
But anyway, yes, thanks, things went
well. : D

As to objective standards, let's think that thru.
First, by objective ypu mean God given, right?

Every culture operates under standards
of behaviour, often quite strict..
No two cultures are the same.
Many are unaware of your God or
what his rules are supposed to be.


So where do the different standards come from?
I'd be interested in what you say.

I'm confident that our culture in no way
is derived from any teaching in the Bible.

Law courts don't do legislation and
so it's not a problem there.
In the USA the legislatures can potentially
pass any law that isn't unconstitutional.

Legislating morality as such is fraught.
Like laws against dancing, cohabitation,
observing the sabbath -!

In general, legislation does best with
a practical rather than ideological (religious,
say) approach. Traffic laws. Contract law.
That kind of thing. What is right or wrong
in terms of how it works.
No Platonic ideal or God given absolutes
are involved.

I really don't see a ywhere absolute God given
morality is even applicable.
Even if it exists it is impossible to
determine what it might be, the Bible
is no help.

Going by many examples of institutions
imposing what they present as God's absolute
law and unquestiinable authority, I'd say
belief in objective / absolute morality is
by far worse for society than for the good.

Bit of a side note here- Americans forcibly
directed rhe aboriginal population to adopt their
culture and morality/religion. It was quite
righteous and holy to do so.

Beijing has assumed direct control
of the province of Tibet, an area long
mired in medieval poverty and theocracy.
To us, this was the right thing to do.
Americans seem to find it immoral.

What God given standards are
there, what society actually lives
or legislates by any of them?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yet again, if someone suggests to you (let alone 'demands' it) that you should accept that responsibility, then use that shift key and pick any colour and size of font that you deem necessary to vent your spleen. But nobody has. Must I point out that this thread isn't about you? So how about you cut the faux outrage...

There is no "faux outrage" being expressed on my part. It's not 'faux' in the least.

How about this instead: you need to realize that we have a clash of worldviews ... ?

If you understood Pascal, you'd understand a bit of my thinking as well. Since I'm guessing that you don't, then you're not understanding me either. (And no, I'm NOT alluding to his Wager as providing the 'why' I get into skeptical faces as easily as I do.)

Rather, I'm alluding to his A.A.S.S. and about a dozen other philosophical and sociological points of interest.

 

[Astrid]

The basis for harm can be understood through understanding teleology. Killing is wrong because it prevents a morally significant and conscious being from living and fulfilling its telos or full flourishing.

The problem from the Modern mindset is that it doesn't see teological or final causes, only material causes. But through an Integral or Metamodern perspective that transcends the previous perspectives, one can understand that there are indeed teleological causes at work in the Universe. It's just more sophisticated than the older teleology of the scholastics like Aquinas.

Now, what does this have to do with defending the legitimacy of religion? Religion is a way for humans to express their place in the Cosmos through an attitude of reverence, awe, and participation in a sacred reality. It is not necessarily opposed to science or logic, but recognizes the limitations of instrumental logic of the Enlightenment.

The problem ( a problem) withvregressive mindsetsis pretending there is not only a First Cause,but they know what it is and how to put
that " knowledge" into forceful effect.

As for why killing is wrong, you propose,
I guess, a general rule. "Wrong because"
should have no exceptions.
And some objective value violated.

There are so many exceptions and what-ifs
and so much debate about what killing
even is that there's no evident utility to
such a declaration of "wrong because".

 

[Ken-1122]

No I'm not, in order to condemn a specific behaviour as wrong necessitates the use of objective fact, whether it's a law or not has nothing to do with it.

Objective facts? Then provide the objective facts that prove killing somebody because you are angry at them is morally wrong..

 

[Ken-1122]

We're spinning our wheels here mate. If there's no standard that's universal to base morality on then it's true that morality is subjective, but it's also equally true you're unable to condemn the holocaust as universally evil for example (or say that the holocaust was truly wrong). You can only say it's different. And no we don't have to agree on laws if they're not true or correct, if that was the case there never would have been the abolishment of slavery.

Okay. Let's assume you are right, and I am wrong. Prove the holocaust and slavery were truly wrong and not just different.

 

[Astrid]

Okay. Let's assume you are right, and I am wrong. Prove the holocaust and slavery were truly wrong and not just different.

The people who did those things believed
what they were doing was objectively
right, as determined by Higher authority.

That's the problem with this objective
morality stuff.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The people who did those things believed
what they were doing was objectively
right, as determined by Higher authority.

That's the problem with this objective
morality stuff.

Actually, not exactly the case. As Claudia Koonz makes an alternative case for in her book, The Nazi Conscience, the thinking among the Nazis was primarily nationalistic and morally relative, it was mostly dependent on getting what Hitler and his SS thought that Germany needed for the sake of Germany, not on some actual objective that all people everywhere could at least minimally agree upon.

So, I think Koonz' thesis does a decent job of showing that merely thinking that one's perspective has some sort of ideological weight doesn't actually make it 'objective' when the claims that come out of that perspective are self-centered and self-serving, as they were for the Nazis. In their case, their ideology was a form of selfish sophistry, at best, and just plain evil at worst. In their case, I think it was both sophistry and evil. Radically evil.

As for slavery in the U.S., that too had its serious and deeply rooted problems involving interpretive subjectivities that were highly inconsistent and which unjustifiably pulled together discordant pieces of classical Greece philosophy and placed them along side very, very abused interpretations of the Bible in order to proffer the supposed "objectivity" and "authority" of a false [fictional] White dominance in the world. They were not only subjectively relative, they were damned wrong.

And yes, I have sources to back this up too if you want them. I just love social philosophy and social science!

 

[stevevw]

That’s why it’s important to have a discussion; it isn’t enough to say you are wrong, you have to explain why they are wrong.

That sounds like reasoning out things to some objective measure.

If their standard is different than yours, then you are at an impasse. That’s how morality works in the real world, and that is also why we have enforced laws; because people don’t agree on moral standards, but we do have to agree on laws.

But do we agree for the sake of agreeing or do we agree that there is some good reason beyond ourselves that gives it truth status rather than being wrong because of some coincident that everyone happen to agree about at the same time for no apparent reason that it was wrong. To even say its wrong implies some objective reason outside the subject.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

The basis for harm can be understood through understanding teleology. Killing is wrong because it prevents a morally significant and conscious being from living and fulfilling its telos or full flourishing.

You're assuming the value of a thing and drawing conclusions from that thing. You need a reason as to why preventing a morally significant conscious being from living and fulfilling it's telos means anything at all. Now you're starting from a more sound base as your argument is transcendental but ultimately you end up in the same spot. If someones telos is to be a good murderer or warrior then you need a reason and an objective standard to say why the telos of this person's life form is wrong whereas the natural state of man is to be brought to the fulfillment of all potentiality in a state of peace. Seems like you're stuck in exactly the same position and it changes nothing.

Without an objective measure, what can be considered evidence within teleology? Teleology only makes sense in the light of the actions of a creator, otherwise you're just making inferences from nature without any justification for it's efficacy to produce reliable information.

The problem from the Modern mindset is that it doesn't see teological or final causes, only material causes. But through an Integral or Metamodern perspective that transcends the previous perspectives, one can understand that there are indeed teleological causes at work in the Universe. It's just more sophisticated than the older teleology of the scholastics like Aquinas.

Amen. That's why my gripe is usually with Naturalism, Materialism and most forms of Empiricism.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

As to objective standards, let's think that thru.
First, by objective ypu mean God given, right?

By objective I mean true or universal and I believe that this can be only acquired through a transcendental cause. Otherwise the origin of morality is biology which leaves everything subjective.

So where do the different standards come from?
I'd be interested in what you say.

My problem isn't with the different standards, it's the claiming of moral rights or wrongs under a self refuting subjective morality. It's an epistemological disagreement that has real-life implications regarding evil. I can't sum up my thoughts on the matter any more concisely (which isn't concisely at all btw) than that huge thread I made.
Here is the OP to that huge thread I made
And here is edit number 1 which brings clarity to the OP and is honestly probably more worth reading than the OP
But to answer your question they come from disagreements about what correct morals are. Not that it doesn't exist but they're disagreements as to what is right and wrong. Something that is unable to be substantiated within Atheism (due to it's reliance upon Naturalism & Materialism for truth claims).

I really don't see a ywhere absolute God given
morality is even applicable.
Even if it exists it is impossible to
determine what it might be, the Bible
is no help.

You're unable to justify moral claims without a standard (something not relative). The Bible therein is not 'no help'. I understand your problem is with the truth of the Bible but that's a bit cart before the horse. Once we establish that moral truths can't exist independent of a transcendental cause then we can argue about what that transcendental cause is.

imposing what they present as God's absolute
law and unquestiinable authority, I'd say
belief in objective / absolute morality is
by far worse for society than for the good.

I'm about to highlight the issue here. On what basis do you claim something to be good or bad? is it assumed like has happened here? My problem is with the unjustifiability of the presuppositions used to justify any moral claims under Atheism (Naturalism & Materialism) and their incoherence. I'm not calling you incoherent here personally, I mean it in a technical sense in regards to the argumentation used to determine what is 'good' or 'bad'.

What God given standards are
there, what society actually lives
or legislates by any of them?

Living by standards =/= their truthfulness. Failing to live up to them does not mean that they are not correct. It just means we're sinners and need to repent by the objective moral standard and revelation in God incarnate, Jesus Christ. I think you'll find the discussion I had with Brad up above discusses these points specifically. Though we disagree (that's ok! we're allowed to disagree ) they're helpful for exposition on the problems and reading them might highlight the differences & disagreements on both sides of the isle that each respective worldview has with one another.
Here's my position summed up with Brad's proposition included in the reply
Here's my response that discusses what I believe are the underpinnings of Atheistic morality and it's problems (with Brad's reply to my first one included)
Here's Brad's final response with a good link to more information about his worldview and justification for moral actions

God bless and I'm glad everything went well with your meeting . We use appointment and meeting here in Aus interchangeably and without tone to judge what the person means it can be confusing because the word appointment sounds very "I'm going to the doctor-y" lol.

[Edit: I messed up the links >_<]

 

[Ken-1122]

That sounds like reasoning out things to some objective measure.

Could be, but not necessarily so.

But do we agree for the sake of agreeing or do we agree that there is some good reason beyond ourselves that gives it truth status rather than being wrong because of some coincident that everyone happen to agree about at the same time for no apparent reason that it was wrong.

We agree because we know we need to all agree on the same standard when it comes to laws; so we compromise some of our moral beliefs in order to come to an agreement because we can never get everybody to agree on everything when it comes to morals

To even say its wrong implies some objective reason outside the subject.

I disagree. If it were outside the subject, that would mean the right vs wrong that applies to humans would also be applied to lions, tigers, bears and anything else that exists

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sources for what? Historical fact?


Who said anything about a point of view? Are you actually disputing any of the historical facts I mentioned? Do you need me to document that George Washington was the first President, too?

Are you sure your shift key isn't stuck?

My point is that your statements are too generic, and that you seem to posit them without the necessary support to back up what you're saying.

Part of the difference here between us is that where history and moral ontology might begin, you seem to want to start with someone like Richard Dawkins whereas I'm going to begin with Barbara J. King. And then it goes from there on various levels.

But who knows? Maybe you and I might find some things in common along the epistemic highways.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Could be, but not necessarily so.

We agree because we know we need to all agree on the same standard when it comes to laws; so we compromise some of our moral beliefs in order to come to an agreement because we can never get everybody to agree on everything when it comes to morals

I disagree. If it were outside the subject, that would mean the right vs wrong that applies to humans would also be applied to lions, tigers, bears and anything else that exists

Compromise only really comes into play when anyone is advocating for laws to be implemented and enforced.

Ethics and morality and advocating for these, however, doesn't require compromise of that sort, although we might still find that our respective Ethical Frameworks have some overlapping between them to various degrees.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Objective facts? Then provide the objective facts that prove killing somebody because you are angry at them is morally wrong..

Okay. Let's assume you are right, and I am wrong. Prove the holocaust and slavery were truly wrong and not just different.

Mate you're not gripping the argument. In order to do these things you need a moral standard on which to evaluate behaviour. A moral standard and subjective morality are incompatible as they refute one another.

Now just because you believe something is true but ultimately it's your opinion about the matter, it doesn't mean that the truth is subjective. It just means you disagree about what the truth is, just like any other truth claim. But in order to weigh evidence about what is true you pressuppose the truth of the thing that makes the evidence, evidence. Or rather what makes it true that x is evidence. Part of my problem (that huge thread I made) is that I believe that there's no justification for the presupposition of what makes something morally true or authoritative within an evolutionary framework, that evolutionary framework which relies upon Naturalism/Materialism/Empiricism to validate truth claims or make things evidence.

You're unable to justify moral claims without a standard (something not relative). Once we establish that moral truths can't exist independent of a transcendental cause then we can argue about what that transcendental cause is.

Or what morals are correct based upon that standard (regarding ^)

 

[FireDragon76]

By objective I mean true or universal and I believe that this can be only acquired through a transcendental cause. Otherwise the origin of morality is biology which leaves everything subjective.

I don't agree. We can derive moral axioms observing biology. In fact it's essential to do so. The universe has a larger purpose at work, which is the evolution of structures of greater conscious complexity. Every organism is contributing to that work, and we ourselves can participate in that work when we respond to life with love, gratitude, and compassion.

This framework is compatible with Christianity, and many religions. It was articulated first by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in the West, and Sri Aurobindo in the East.

You're unable to justify moral claims without a standard (something not relative). The Bible therein is not 'no help'. I understand your problem is with the truth of the Bible but that's a bit cart before the horse. Once we establish that moral truths can't exist independent of a transcendental cause then we can argue about what that transcendental cause is.

Moral standards evolve with the consciousness of the society and the world. Moral standards are fundamentally relational and not absolute. 3,500 years ago, sacrificing babies was acceptable, today it isn't. In 200 years, eating animals for food may be seen as barbaric. Consciousness, and moral standards, will continue to evolve.