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

[gaara4158]

Maybe, but I think it's safe to say that where something called "common sense" is being all too frequently referred to as a supposed equivalency for the ability to make an "intelligent choice," we end up only really referring to some very low hanging fruit.

More often than not, common sense ends up being a kind of folkish expectation about positive outcomes that we think surely must come simply because we like to apply some optimism to our moral choices, like the idea that "if I just pull out soon enough from a heated situation, then I believe nothing consequential will happen."

This more 'common' sense of common sense often emerges as the fallacy that it is:

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, that's more along the lines of what passes for "common sense" these days. It's usually not referring to one of the other denotations of the same term that may present us with a more developed notion about which senses in the human mind are truly common, such as are suggested by Thomas Reid as but one older example.

It can also be thought of as one that plays out in the thinking of Thomas Paine. Whether his notion is common, and whether his was politically and morally correct in the first place, is another matter.

Personally, I tend toward being skeptical like Descartes; it's always best not to be too sure of one's own assumed sense of common sense, especially where epistemic issues may arise and become relevant where Ethics and Morality is concerned.

I’m glad to see this sentiment finally expressed in response to the all-too-common appeals to “logic” and “common sense.” In my experience, people are usually conflating their own intuition with the rigors of Logics, and common sense seems to be little more than a warm and fuzzy feeling associated with popular heuristics. Ironically, this leads to those who feel most justified in their reasoning being the ones committing the most egregious errors. Good on you.

Based on what you’ve said, someone else’s conscience could say it’s okay. Would they be just as right as you?

They’d be right about what their conscience tells them, sure. That’s all anyone has.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To me, therein lies the problem, there are a great many instances wherein knowing the factors precisely enough simply isn't possible, and we're left with what you seem to be advocating, which is an "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle". (I hope that I've quoted you correctly this time)

So I have a question. What is this "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle"?

P.S. Forgive me if I'm asking a question that you've already answered.

The Unwritten Universal Moral Principle is the one that I very briefly described back up in posts #347 and #370. As you'll see, there is no problem because the principle only applies to human beings who have a certain rational capacity. We'd expect those persons who don't have that rational ability to fail at seeing its implied moral substance and authority. Hence, it's universalizable because it applies to everyone of rational culpability and no one has an excuse to ignore it, and those who do ignore it are those few who are insane or sociopathic/psychopathic.

It also is only one principle affecting only one moral situation that almost anyone can engage. It isn't a code or a system, and it is only a beginning point for Ethical and Moral consideration. It's not the end point. It's not even Kant's Categorical Imperative or Christ's Golden Rule or even that of Confucius'; although it is a simple cognitive extraction and adaptation of these other principles.

Other, more complicated ethical situations and/or dilemmas will require additional considerations beyond this principle since its purpose is not meant to cover every moral problem, obviously.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’m glad to see this sentiment finally expressed in response to the all-too-common appeals to “logic” and “common sense.” In my experience, people are usually conflating their own intuition with the rigors of Logics, and common sense seems to be little more than a warm and fuzzy feeling associated with popular heuristics. Ironically, this leads to those who feel most justified in their reasoning being the ones committing the most egregious errors. Good on you.

I'm glad to see someone can agree with me on something, at least. That's always a good thing.

 

[Ken-1122]

To me, therein lies the problem, there are a great many instances wherein knowing the factors precisely enough simply isn't possible, and we're left with what you seem to be advocating, which is an "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle". (I hope that I've quoted you correctly this time)

So I have a question. What is this "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle"?

P.S. Forgive me if I'm asking a question that you've already answered.

I wouldn’t say it’s been answered, but it has been asked. What he calls the Universal Moral Principle is the idea that people don’t like pain inflicted upon themselves. The problem is, this isn’t really a moral principle, because I can always present a scenario where someone deserves pain, and if it's about morality; it has to be about everybody not just me. It’s more of a preference rather than a moral principle.

 

[Ken-1122]

Maybe, but I think it's safe to say that where something called "common sense" is being all too frequently referred to as a supposed equivalency for the ability to make an "intelligent choice," we end up only really referring to some very low hanging fruit.

More often than not, common sense ends up being a kind of folkish expectation about positive outcomes that we think surely must come simply because we like to apply some optimism to our moral choices, like the idea that "if I just pull out soon enough from a heated situation, then I believe nothing consequential will happen."

This more 'common' sense of common sense often emerges as the fallacy that it is:

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, that's more along the lines of what passes for "common sense" these days. It's usually not referring to one of the other denotations of the same term that may present us with a more developed notion about which senses in the human mind are truly common, such as are suggested by Thomas Reid as but one older example.

It can also be thought of as one that plays out in the thinking of Thomas Paine. Whether his notion is common, and whether his was politically and morally correct in the first place, is another matter.

Personally, I tend toward being skeptical like Descartes; it's always best not to be too sure of one's own assumed sense of common sense, especially where epistemic issues may arise and become relevant where Ethics and Morality is concerned.

That might be the case for some, but not all. And for those it is that way, it is still their way of using logic. My point is; flawed or not, most people do not come to logic by reading books and copying what somebody else wrote about, most come to logic by just doing what makes sense to them at the moment.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That might be the case for some, but not all. And for those it is that way, it is still their way of using logic. My point is; flawed or not, most people do not come to logic by reading books and copying what somebody else wrote about, most come to logic by just doing what makes sense to them at the moment.

Between your statement above that you made to WD about "presenting a scenario where someone deserves pain" coupled with what you're attempting to assert here about how you think people "define their own logic," it sounds to me like you're only two steps away from not actually being "neutral" toward Christians and only one step away from making a number of invalid and unsound deductions, and pushing invalid methods of either induction or abduction.

What is logic (or better yet, what are all of the various forms and uses of logic that militate against your own)?

And what is justice, and who gets to decide? And what is knowledge and/or truth? What is the nature of human reality?

I'm thinking that your own made up, street-level answers to these questions aren't going to be universalizable; they might even be morally, if not legally, culpable. As a friendly gesture and as a fellow traveller on this huge mud-ball we call Earth, I suggest you put down the shovel of "Bad Praxis" that you're relying on, Ken.

Do it for your own sake in this life. It's not worth the irrational and unreasonable hole that you're digging for yourself in your persistence. And why? ..............because NONE of us gets to just make up the world and the reality in which we live. It is what it is.

Deuteronomy 12:18​

​

“You shall not do according to all that we are doing here today, everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes...​

​

Some additional biblical considerations: What Does the Bible Say About What Is Right In Our Own Eyes?​

​

Logic and Ontology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

​

Classical Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

​

Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

​

Instrumental Rationality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

​

Rationality, Intelligibility, and Interpretation

1. IntroductionIn an important series of books and articles, Jon Elster has studied human rationality, both its scope and limitations and the central role it plays in social theory (see, e.g., Elster 1983b, 1984, 1989b). Elster firmly believes that the interpretation of human behavior could not...

arcade.stanford.edu

​

​

 

[Ken-1122]

Between your statement above that you made to WD about "presenting a scenario where someone deserves pain" coupled with what you're attempting to assert here about how you think people "define their own logic," it sounds to me like you're only two steps away from not actually being "neutral" toward Christians

The vast majority of my friends and family are Christians. Obviously I have deep love for the Christians I know. I am at least neutral to any religious person I do not find harmful; and I have yet to actually meet a Christian I found harmful.

and only one step away from making a number of invalid and unsound deductions, and pushing invalid methods of either induction or abduction.
What is logic (or better yet, what are all of the various forms and uses of logic that militate against your own)?

Any logical view that opposes my own. Obviously 2 people can apply their logic to a given situation and end up with opposing views.

And what is justice, and who gets to decide?

The law

And what is knowledge and/or truth?

Knowledge is information. Truth is information that aligns with reality.

What is the nature of human reality?

Subjective perception

I'm thinking that your own made up, street-level answers to these questions aren't going to be universalizable; they might even be morally, if not legally, culpable.

I’m sure there are those who might find them morally culpable, but not legally unless I attempt to impose them upon others; which I don’t.

As a friendly gesture and as a fellow traveller on this huge mud-ball we call Earth, I suggest you put down the shovel of "Bad Praxis" that you're relying on, Ken.

Do it for your own sake in this life. It's not worth the irrational and unreasonable hole that you're digging for yourself in your persistence. And why? ..............because NONE of us gets to just make up the world and the reality in which we live. It is what it is.

My “street-level” answers to such questions are not an attempt to make up the reality of which I live, it is a reaction to the reality of which I live

PS I like the way you articulate your views. Though I don’t agree with most of what you say, I must admit; the way you say it sounds good.

 

[NxNW]

No, I actually have a basis for my morality.

You believe you do, but you don't.

 

[Neutral Observer]

The Unwritten Universal Moral Principle is the one that I very briefly described back up in posts #347 and #370. As you'll see, there is no problem because the principle only applies to human beings who have a certain rational capacity. We'd expect those persons who don't have that rational ability to fail at seeing its implied moral substance and authority. Hence, it's universalizable because it applies to everyone of rational culpability and no one has an excuse to ignore it, and those who do ignore it are those few who are insane or sociopathic/psychopathic.

It also is only one principle affecting only one moral situation that almost anyone can engage. It isn't a code or a system, and it is only a beginning point for Ethical and Moral consideration. It's not the end point. It's not even Kant's Categorical Imperative or Christ's Golden Rule or even that of Confucius'; although it is a simple cognitive extraction and adaptation of these other principles.

Having had a chance to delve more deeply into this "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle", I must say that I'm not impressed.

First off, I see no reason why it should only apply to 'human beings who have a certain rational capacity'. Humans are perfectly capable of behaving according to some intuitive moral principles, even if they fail to comprehend the rationale behind those principles. More power to them if they can deduce the rationale behind them, but their behavior isn't governed by knowing why those principles exist, but only by intuiting that they exist.

Logically, even highly social animals should be able to intuit many of the exact same moral principles that we do. After all, those intuitable moral principles are essential to any stable social structure. So I don't accept the argument that an "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle" requires 'human beings who have a certain rational capacity'.

I think that any social animal that has the ability to intuit acceptable social behavior, has morals. And furthermore, I see no reason to assume that human moral principles are any more valid than theirs are.

Secondly, how are you differentiating this "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle" from "Natural Law"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The vast majority of my friends and family are Christians. Obviously I have deep love for the Christians I know. I am at least neutral to any religious person I do not find harmful; and I have yet to actually meet a Christian I found harmful.

Well, I can't complain about that. I'm glad to hear that you have amiable, even loving relationships on that count. That's always a plus in my book.

Any logical view that opposes my own. Obviously 2 people can apply their logic to a given situation and end up with opposing views.

That may be the case, but I'd like to offer than while what you're saying here can be true in a number of varied "given situation," it can't necessarily be the case for every and any given situatin. Just so long as we're clear on that. ... I mean, we both should know that we live on a planet that is round and revolves around our local Sun. Much to both our chagrin, there are folks who will think it's "logical" to disagree with both of us, and they'be be vastly wrong.

The law

No, the law doesn't get to decided what Justice actually "is"; the Law gets to enforce what is preseently discerned as the pragmatic need in society with bill proposals and enactments and enforcements that are deemed appopriate. At the time.

Knowledge is information. Truth is information that aligns with reality.

Epistemologists will aver that Knowledge isn't simply information and Truth isn't necessarily information that actually aligns with reality.

See. It can get trickly. That's why I study Epistemology as a part of my philosophy studies. But for the moment, I suppose that's neither here nor there in this discussion on Ethics.

Subjective perception

The problem with that is that "subjective perception" is itself own to the evaluations of both "subjective perception(s)" AND subjective perceptions can come in varying qualities, some are 1st order levels of conceptual cognition, some are 2nd order or higher levels, where we Frame the frames and anayze the frames that we place on the frames that we think we're working in when attempting to make sense of our sensory data of the world around us. ... It gets complicated in ways that Frege and later Neuro-Scientists found out.

Second-order and Higher-order Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I’m sure there are those who might find them morally culpable, but not legally unless I attempt to impose them upon others; which I don’t.

That's a plus.

My “street-level” answers to such questions are not an attempt to make up the reality of which I live, it is a reaction to the reality of which I live

Reactions that don't make up reality. I guess that's one angle of consideration. It is, as you were implying previously, a common one.

PS I like the way you articulate your views. Though I don’t agree with most of what you say, I must admit; the way you say it sounds good.

Oh, thanks. But even with that, I'm under the impression that with my own common sense in tow, I probably shouldn't quite my day job. But I will pay your compliment forward to all those authors, mentors and other sources who've made what little I understand about the world around me possible.

 

[Bradskii]

Based on what you’ve said, someone else’s conscience could say it’s okay. Would they be just as right as you?

And if someone disagrees with you, are they just as right? There are many moral problems that are not addressed by anything found within your religion. So if someone says that you are wrong, then do you simply accept that they are right?

Do you not look at the facts of any given matter before you make a decision? Do you not listen to those whose opinions you trust? Do you not empathise with other people? Do you not consider the well being of other people? Or do you just shrug your shoulders and accept what the other guy tells you?

These trite questions you are asking are ones I wouldn't even expect my grandson to ask. He'd be able to give me a simple answer that seems to be too difficult for you to comprehend. In fact, that is not a hypothetical scenario. I teach him and a group of kids his age ethics in his school. Without fail, they'd be puzzled as to why you find any difficulty in formulating moral positions without some divine guidance.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm amazed that you wouldn't just express this first off...

You're amazed that an atheist doesn't use God as the first consideration in answering a moral problem?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Having had a chance to delve more deeply into this "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle", I must say that I'm not impressed.

It wasn't meant to be impressive, and it shouldn't be. It's only a beginning point from which to add.

First off, I see no reason why it should only apply to 'human beings who have a certain rational capacity'. Humans are perfectly capable of behaving according to some intuitive moral principles, even if they fail to comprehend the rationale behind those principles. More power to them if they can deduce the rationale behind them, but their behavior isn't governed by knowing why those principles exist, but only by intuiting that they exist.

I think you've misunderstood me. Have you ever studied Kant and his Categorical Imperative? Obviously, intuiontion will play into the eventuating, even stronger notions of Ethics that most of us (MOST but not all) have. We can refer to the late G.E. Moore for more on Intuitionism. He had some interesting things to say.

Logically, even highly social animals should be able to intuit many of the exact same moral principles that we do. After all, those intuitable moral principles are essential to any stable social structure. So I don't accept the argument that an "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle" requires 'human beings who have a certain rational capacity'.

I think that by referring to highly social animals intuiting similar things, you've just inadvertently added to my argument, most particularly the fact that the Principle is UN-written, not written. Sure, some aspects of what we see as behavior which contributes to forms of morality will be (and from the Christian perspective even) expected to be evident througought portions of the animal kingdom, which is partly why I refer to the work of atheist anthropologist, Barbara J. King. ... Like I said, what consider to be but a beginning principle is only that. It's the first step in dozens of other additional steps that come in our human efforts to conceptualize Ethics and put forth action on behalf of moral social integration.

But yeah. There are sociopaths and psychopaths, among other psychological maladies and disorders, which do get in the way of "certain rational capacities" that are needed for ethical recognition and moral functioning.

You and I both know this.

Reference

King, Babara J. (2007/2017). Evolving God. The University of Chicago Press.

I think that any social animal that has the ability to intuit acceptable social behavior, has morals. And furthermore, I see no reason to assume that human moral principles are any more valid than theirs are.

If you want to take the views of atheist moral philospopher, James Rachels, then be my guest. As a Christian who thinks that we have just a bit more than "other animals" where morals are concerned, I'll have to disagree with you and lean toward my own sources like rather than yours.

Reference

Rachels, James. (1990). Created From Animals: The moral implications of Darwinism. Oxford.

Secondly, how are you differentiating this "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle" from "Natural Law"?

Natural Law Theory in Ethics (rather than Natural theology) proffers a fuller account of all of the naturally interconnected moral inclinations that we and animals may have. But it's a bit teleological too in that it posits the general idea that "good humans are those who fulfill their true [natural] nature; bad human beings are those who don't...actions that are right just are because they are natural, and wrong just because they are unnatural. And people are good to the extent that they fulfill their true nature, bad insofar as they flout it" (Landau, p. 72). More can be said about Natrual Law Theory, and I don't intend to get into that here.

By contrast, my "unwritten principle" is a little tiny idea about rational moral human cognizance and it simply implies that human beings everywhere should have the ability to recognize moral solidarity; it's human in that, too, we can't realize in an a posteriori fashion that we shouldn't feel like we could just kill our neighbors for food or convenience or anger, and we don't eat our young when the going gets tough. If we're rational. Of course, because the world is situationally complex, we need more than simply this principle alone in order to build, support and assert a robust Ethical Framework, even if it's one of a dozen we can choose from.

So, nowhere am I saying that this one principle alone is enough by which to 'be moral'; it's not an Ethical framework. Just a little ol' principle. It's only a very, very, very basic principle at that, like one dot on a connect the dot drawing that you and I could then color in after we've ... connected all of the many other dots that need to be connected.

One dot is not the whole picture; one principle is not a system or frame for Ethics. Of course, one dot isn't impressive. It shouldn't be. But it's also necessary.

Reference

Landau, Russ Shafer. (2010). The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford.

 

[Hammster]

You believe you do, but you don't.

I do.

 

[Hammster]

And if someone disagrees with you, are they just as right? There are many moral problems that are not addressed by anything found within your religion. So if someone says that you are wrong, then do you simply accept that they are right?

Do you not look at the facts of any given matter before you make a decision? Do you not listen to those whose opinions you trust? Do you not empathise with other people? Do you not consider the well being of other people? Or do you just shrug your shoulders and accept what the other guy tells you?

These trite questions you are asking are ones I wouldn't even expect my grandson to ask. He'd be able to give me a simple answer that seems to be too difficult for you to comprehend. In fact, that is not a hypothetical scenario. I teach him and a group of kids his age ethics in his school. Without fail, they'd be puzzled as to why you find any difficulty in formulating moral positions without some divine guidance.

Can you answer the question? Just wondering.

 

[Bradskii]

Having had a chance to delve more deeply into this "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle", I must say that I'm not impressed.

A fair amount of bandwidth has been used to fluff up 'People don't like getting smacked in the mouth.' See post above.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

That depends. And I don't say this lightly since I don't think it's an emotionally fair question in this instance.

But answering your question does depend upon certain factors and contexts that we all have to fully take into account.

It depends? The Bible is very clear insomuch as there is absolutely nothing about killing your neighbor because of dog poop in your yard, yet quite a bit about shedding blood.

The Bible even tells how the killer can avoid death by fleeing to a city of refuge until the high priest dies.

Yet our civil law prevents the survivor's from fulfilling God's own commandment to shed the blood of the guilty.

Somehow the followers of a Jewish Bronze Age based belief system are superior to those without religion because they possess a guide book of so called morality written thousands of years ago. And apparently we (non believers) don't have a good reason to be able to distinguish good from bad or have objective morality because our concept of good and bad isn't based on a book that tells how to bash children's heads against a wall.

And of course I am ready for the "that's old Testament", "nailed to the cross", "dosen't apply anymore", and all the other dance moves that come with that. (unless homosexuality is the issue, then its okay to use the old testament).

Anyway, I regret throwing 49 years of my life away with religion but am thankful that Christianity was able to help remove that burden.

 

[Hammster]

They’d be right about what their conscience tells them, sure. That’s all anyone has.

No point in trying to convict them of a crime then.

 

[Hammster]

And how is your Bible any different? According to the Bible, isn't right vs wrong based on what God feels is right or wrong?

No.

 

[Bradskii]

Can you answer the question? Just wondering.

I came across the term 'sealioning' yesterday. It's apparently an internet term describing how some people keep asking inane questions as a means to further what they think is a decent argument from their pointof view. This is a classic example.

You already know full well that people disagree on moral problems. What one does in any given situation depends on said given situation, so your question as it stands is effectively worthless. So let's use something specific.

So hey, the guy next door wants to shoot his neighbour because his dog fouled his lawn. Well gee, our consciences are giving us different instructions. Heavens to Bettsy! What's a boy to do? Well, I dunno...not having divine guidance I'm really at a loss. I guess he has just as much right to think he can shoot the guy as I have to say he shouldn't.

Such an unsolvable problem. Lucky we have you to tell us what the answer is.