Morality without Absolute Morality

[Bradskii]

Again, you seem to be conflating objective morality with deontological ethics. They are not the same thing, so the rightness or wrongness is not necessarily a matter of particular act.

It's a difference with no difference.

As for how we identify whose claimed revelation to trust, that's a tricky question but I'm going with the guy that I believe backed His claims of authority up by coming back from the dead.

You and the other guy are using the same source. Again, how do I know who is right? Let's face it, there are more than enough disagreements between Christians in this forum for you to know, without a shadow of doubt, that this is a problem.

Are you going to use your source to tell me what I should do tonight?

 

[Fervent]

No, the usefulness of an object is in meeting a purpose. I think you're using good differently when talking about moral good(s), and a good hammer (are bad hammers then immoral?) or this pasta is good (bad tasting pasta should be an objective moral failing though, jk).

No, I'm not using good differently. I'm a believer in Nicomacean ethics, which don't see a need to distinguish between ordinary good and a special sense of good for moral good.

An object that can accurately drive nails is a useful hammer.

Maybe useful, but it is only a good hammer if it was intended to drive nails.

Someone that is promoting, acting or otherwise making some of kind goal more probable is a useful man in the working toward that goal. But even then I still don't feel like that makes that person more or less moral.

Since when are feelings an argument?

Why, even if there are a Creator there is no logical necessity for any purpose. And why couldn't the Creator not know the purpose a priori, even if there was one (in some kind of meta-world)? Or why couldn't it be known to all if the Creator wills it and has the ability to make its will known? Basically, invoking a Creator does what for the argument?

Necessity? I suppose a Creator may have no intent with His creation, but that doesn't negate that the good of the creation is to meet the purpose that it was intended for.

 

[Fervent]

It's a difference with no difference.

Nope, it's a very significant difference. Deontological ethics are only one way to frame an objective morality, and in my opinion the weakest. Attacking objective morality based on perceived weaknesses of deontological ethics is attacking a man of straw.

You and the other guy are using the same source. Again, how do I know who is right? Let's face it, there are more than enough disagreements between Christians in this forum for you to know, without a shadow of doubt, that this is a problem.

There certainly are significant disagreements, but the fact that human beings come to project their ethical frameworks on the Divine does not discredit the existence of a Divine standard. I don't see vibrant disagreements and discussions on such matters as a problem, just a fact of seeing through a mirror darkly.

Are you going to use your source to tell me what I should do tonight?

No, I'm not in the business of moral dictates. Search your own heart.

 

[Fervent]

I don't need to. I just need to be convinced myself. Your beliefs are a matter for you. I'm not interested in questioning them.

It's not a matter of questioning my beliefs, but seeing if you'll put your money where your mouth is. In my experience atheists make bold statements of epistemic confidence, only to turn around and feign agnosticism when asked to make a demonstration of their knowledge. So are you convinced because you've been presented with solid arguments against the existence of God, or have you simply taken it to be the default and expected others to change your mind?

That will apply to your beliefs as well. Whether you have high confidence in them is again up to you.

Of course, which is why I'm a philosophical skeptic. I don't believe we can justifiably claim to know anything, and at some point everything comes down to faith of one sort or another.

Lots of things that I believed were wrong. But if you spend a lifetime checking the validity of your beliefs then you gain confidence in a lot of them.

False confidence, since just because they haven't proven wrong yet doesn't mean they will hold. And there is only so much that any individual can check on their own without relying on testimonial reports.

I don't know why this is a problem. 'This act IS going to cause someone pain, therefore I OUGHT not to do it'.

So surgeons shouldn't perform surgery? You're inserting an arbitrary value into the mix that need not be there. Just because you don't understand the problem, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Then they are not objective. They are relative to the conditions you listed.

No, they're not "relative" because in any given situation there is a limited number of options that are correct;; they just aren't simple or inherent in the act alone.

Indeed. Yet you want to declare morality to be objectively right or wrong even when we can't determine whether they are either.

The existence of a objective right and wrong is distinct from our ability to make determinations. Without an objective morality, morals are meaningless and the only moral authority is force.

You are making my case for me...

Nope, you're conflating access with existence.

No. But that wasn't the question was it. Should I stay in and donate or go out and spend my hard earned on myself? Which is the morally correct answer?

Perhaps you should take the time to understand the relevance, because my answer is in the question.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

No, I'm not using good differently. I'm a believer in Nicomacean ethics, which don't see a need to distinguish between ordinary good and a special sense of good for moral good.

Well I'm not a believer in Nicomacean ethics (I think, I haven't read about them). But now I'm intrigued, what should we do with immoral hammers?

Maybe useful, but it is only a good hammer if it was intended to drive nails.

Any object that can drive nails well is a good hammer.

Since when are feelings an argument?

Since we are talking about morals? Anyone having a opinion about something being moral or not is expressing their moral feelings from my perspective. Including a Creator.

Necessity? I suppose a Creator may have no intent with His creation, but that doesn't negate that the good of the creation is to meet the purpose that it was intended for.

Even it it doesn't exist? So in your view if humans have no telos their actions can't be called morally good or bad? Does this mean, if we don't know that telos we shouldn't express any moral sentiments ourselves?

I guess that you are arguing from Nicomacean ethics again. Does Aristotle give a explicit argument for the connection between telos and morality, instead of just declaring them connected? Something I can read so that I perhaps understand why they should be connected?

 

[Bradskii]

Nope, it's a very significant difference. Deontological ethics are only one way to frame an objective morality, and in my opinion the weakest.

Then it was a waste of our time in you bringing them up.

Attacking objective morality based on perceived weaknesses of deontological ethics is attacking a man of straw.

So we'll not mention deontology again. I hope.

There certainly are significant disagreements, but the fact that human beings come to project their ethical frameworks on the Divine does not discredit the existence of a Divine standard.

Ah, you mean deontology. I thought we weren't going to mention that again...

I don't see vibrant disagreements and discussions on such matters as a problem, just a fact of seeing through a mirror darkly.

It's the biggest problem that you have. What purpose can an objective morality have if we don't agree on what it is?

No, I'm not in the business of moral dictates. Search your own heart.

Exactly. Your source is silent on the matter. So I have to make that moral decision myself. Again, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Bradskii]

It's not a matter of questioning my beliefs, but seeing if you'll put your money where your mouth is. In my experience atheists make bold statements of epistemic confidence...

My bold statement is that no argument presented to me has convinced me whatsoever that there is a God. Your mileage obviously varies. There is no proof available to anyone either for or against the matter. I'll not waste our time in discussing it further.

Of course, which is why I'm a philosophical skeptic. I don't believe we can justifiably claim to know anything, and at some point everything comes down to faith of one sort or another.

I claim that we can. Sufficiently to live a meaningful life.

False confidence, since just because they haven't proven wrong yet doesn't mean they will hold. And there is only so much that any individual can check on their own without relying on testimonial reports.

I hold to them with justifiable confidence until I'm proved wrong. And let's be honest. The level of confidence often rises to such a point where it's not valid to say that you're in any doubt.

So surgeons shouldn't perform surgery?

Please, do not treat me like an idiot. You know exactly what I meant.

No, they're not "relative" because in any given situation there is a limited number of options that are correct;; they just aren't simple or inherent in the act alone.

All acts are context dependent. If you want to dispute that truism then simply give me an example of an act without any context at all.

The existence of a objective right and wrong is distinct from our ability to make determinations. Without an objective morality, morals are meaningless and the only moral authority is force.

You're going to force me to donate to charity? How is that going to work?

Nope, you're conflating access with existence.

You said that we can't determine objective morality. Because gee, it's a swamp out there. What use is it if you tell me it's too difficult to determine, you get different people saying they are using the same source but reaching different conclusions and you can't answer simple moral ptoblems?

What is it that you are trying to support. It seems like smoke and mirrors.

Perhaps you should take the time to understand the relevance, because my answer is in the question.

No, you gave a different question (Singer's example) that would have an easy answer. Expound on that basic question and tell me at what point I should save the child somewhere instead of having dinner with my wife?

I'm sure you'd tell me what you thought of me if I let the kid drown to save damaging my new shoes. So why is my question so hard? What's the objective answer?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You were given the seeds but they did not take.

I have successfully grown many seeds. Please don't denigrate my horticultural skill. You don't know me.

The only question to be answered is: When did you stop praying? Mat 13:3-9.

You are making this personal again. When I stopped wasting my time is not relevant to the non-absolute nature of morality.

 

[Fervent]

Well I'm not a believer in Nicomacean ethics (I think, I haven't read about them). But now I'm intrigued, what should we do with immoral hammers?

A hammer that isn't suited to the purpose of being a hammer either needs a new purpose it is suited for, or is only fit for destruction.

Any object that can drive nails well is a good hammer.

If its purpose is to drive nails, but if it was intended for another purpose then its usefulness as a hammer is irrelevant to its good. It s only good for hammers to be useful as hammers, a screwdrivers usefulness as a hammer iis not relevant to its good.

Since we are talking about morals? Anyone having a opinion about something being moral or not is expressing their moral feelings from my perspective. Including a Creator.

That's hardly an argument, just an assertion on your part. And it renders any discussion of morals absolutely pointless, making it a mystery why you would even bother discussing questions of morality.

Even it it doesn't exist? So in your view if humans have no telos their actions can't be called morally good or bad? Does this mean, if we don't know that telos we shouldn't express any moral sentiments ourselves?

Yes, if we have no final cause then there is no point in making moral evaluations. If all we are expressing is personal preferences, then there is no reason to expect such things to matter to anyone but ourselves.

I guess that you are arguing from Nicomacean ethics again. Does Aristotle give a explicit argument for the connection between telos and morality, instead of just declaring them connected? Something I can read so that I perhaps understand why they should be connected?

He does, but I'm too lazy to locate/present it at the moment. As with any moral argument, there is a gap in the explanation but the thrust of the argument is that good and evil are intrinsic to the nature of an object rather than in actions, with actions taking on value depending on their relationship to the intrinsic qualities of the object. If the object is acting in accordance with its nature, then it is acting in accordance with the good. So to determine what is and isn't good requires determining the purpose for that object and how well it serves that purpose. When it comes to human beings, this lends itself to ideas about morality through how well we exhibit particular virtues rather than whether we follow moral precepts. But moral good is not separate from a more general kind of good, because in order for something to be good is nothing over and above it exemplifying its nature.

 

[Fervent]

My bold statement is that no argument presented to me has convinced me whatsoever that there is a God. Your mileage obviously varies. There is no proof available to anyone either for or against the matter. I'll not waste our time in discussing it further.

So simply because you have not been convinced, you claim to know with confidence that no such being exists? Sounds like you've accepted the argument from ignorance as having some kind of force. If there is no proof either for or against, what compels you to have an opinion in the first place?

I claim that we can. Sufficiently to live a meaningful life.

Your qualification leaves a wide bearth to the point that it appears vacuous.

I hold to them with justifiable confidence until I'm proved wrong. And let's be honest. The level of confidence often rises to such a point where it's not valid to say that you're in any doubt.

The arrogance of man knows no limits.

Please, do not treat me like an idiot. You know exactly what I meant.

No, I don't know what you meant. You presented either a non-sequitor, in which the relationship between your premise and conclusion is not apparent, or have simply inserted your conclusion about what is moral into your premises to reach the conclusion.

All acts are context dependent. If you want to dispute that truism then simply give me an example of an act without any context at all.

Sure, all acts are context dependent. Which would be a problem if morals were necessarily inherent in the act. But deontological ethics are only one potential moral framework, and not one I find particularly compelling.

You're going to force me to donate to charity? How is that going to work?

I'm not, but if there isn't an intrinsic objective morality then there is still the objective morality that is imposed by whoever is the most powerful and is the most willing to impose their values upon others.

You said that we can't determine objective morality. Because gee, it's a swamp out there. What use is it if you tell me it's too difficult to determine, you get different people saying they are using the same source but reaching different conclusions and you can't answer simple moral ptoblems?

There are no simple moral problems, but the existence of moral complexity has no bearing on whether or not objective morality exists.

What is it that you are trying to support. It seems like smoke and mirrors.

Perhaps if you took the time to try to understand what is being argued, rather than arguing with pre-conceived targets that are easily discounted you would be able to answer this. It's not smoke and mirrors, it just seems that way because you're flattening the discussion and creating a false dilemma.

No, you gave a different question (Singer's example) that would have an easy answer. Expound on that basic question and tell me at what point I should save the child somewhere instead of having dinner with my wife?

Why should the answer change? What is the pertinent difference?

I'm sure you'd tell me what you thought of me if I let the kid drown to save damaging my new shoes. So why is my question so hard? What's the objective answer?

I reserve my judgment for those who share my values, if my values are correct you have your judge you will answer to. There's nothing hard about your question, and I've given you my answer which you seem to recognize through familiarity with Singer's example. What makes you think its a hard question?

 

[o_mlly]

You are making this personal again.

? As you claim to be your own god and refuse to engage in a rational exchange, how else could it be?

Nevertheless, I see that it is a waste of time to continue with you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

? As you claim to be your own god and refuse to engage in a rational exchange, how else could it be?

Are you that poor at reading? I have never claimed to be a god. I don't think the idea of a god is even coherent.

Nevertheless, I see that it is a waste of time to continue with you.

Your presuppositionalist arguments never go anywhere but in circles.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Yes, if we have no final cause then there is no point in making moral evaluations. If all we are expressing is personal preferences, then there is no reason to expect such things to matter to anyone but ourselves.

Still, we do them and we often try to find common ground with those we talk to. If we do that then we can act politically. There is still room for moral discussions in my world, if you want to exclude it you are of course free to do so.

I just want to point out that you just rephrased your own assertion in the description of what is a moral good. There is no explicit argument for the connection between telos and morality there.

 

[Fervent]

Still, we do them and we often try to find common ground with those we talk to. If we do that then we can act politically. There is still room for moral discussions in my world, if you want to exclude it you are of course free to do so.

All you're doing is creating a moral standard that amounts to nothing more than what is popular is right, which might be expedient for social cohesion it doesn't legitimize the sentiments as moral. The idea of right and wrong, apart from some objective element, is pure fiction. So why keep up the pretense that it is in any way discussions of morality, when it is just a matter of contemporary popular sentiment?

I just want to point out that you just rephrased your own assertion in the description of what is a moral good. There is no explicit argument for the connection between telos and morality there.

I am aware, reasoning about morality is bound to run into the is-ought problem where there is a gap between premise and conclusion. But the problem is epistemic rather than metaphysical, and really only presents a problem to claims that we can arrive at true morality through unassisted human reasoning.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

All you're doing is creating a moral standard that amounts to nothing more than what is popular is right, which might be expedient for social cohesion it doesn't legitimize the sentiments as moral. The idea of right and wrong, apart from some objective element, is pure fiction. So why keep up the pretense that it is in any way discussions of morality, when it is just a matter of contemporary popular sentiment?

Morality is the sentiments we have about acts. In what way are you using it? Even given a Creator-given purpose how is that more than the Creators sentiment, why should that carry any weight?

I am aware, reasoning about morality is bound to run into the is-ought problem where there is a gap between premise and conclusion. But the problem is epistemic rather than metaphysical, and really only presents a problem to claims that we can arrive at true morality through unassisted human reasoning.

What is the difference between true and non-true morality, and what makes that difference? What is assisted human reasoning in contrast to unassisted human reasoning?

 

[Fervent]

Morality is the sentiments we have about acts. In what way are you using it? Even given a Creator-given purpose how is that more than the Creators sentiment, why should that carry any weight?

Morality is discussion of what constitutes the good(and by extension the evil)...if it is merely sentiments, then there any supposed discussion is purely fictitious and arbitrary. Morality is the discussion of how things ought to be, which cannot simply be sentiment. If things that we feel are right are in fact neither right or wrong in some intrinsic fashion, then the only question is what we have the capacity to get away with. A Creator-given purpose gives something intinsic we can use as a benchmark for making determinations, and the existence of purpose means there is a way that things are supposed to be such that we ought to act in accordance with them. It goes beyond mere sentiment because the Creator has the ability to define reality and doesn't change depending on circumstances.

What is the difference between true and non-true morality, and what makes that difference? What is assisted human reasoning in contrast to unassisted human reasoning?

A true morality identifies what is and isn't right, a non-true morality is arbitrary sentiments that really doesn't matter to anyone except the person holding them (and by extension those who agree with them). Assissted human reasoning is reasoning that has had information arising from an external source, while unassissted human reasoning is attempts to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and create knowledge from ignorance.

 

[Bradskii]

So simply because you have not been convinced, you claim to know with confidence that no such being exists?

If countless people had been presenting what they claim is evidence for little green men and none of it had come anywhere close to convincing you then at some point (at least I hope) you'd be confident that they didn't exist. And we're not talking about a few arguments and claims over the last few weeks. We're talking about a serious investigation over decades. And that's not hyperbole.

You'd think me foolish for still entertaining some thoughts on them being real. Then again, those who do believe in little green men would suggest that simply because I have not been convinced, how could I claim to know with confidence that no such beings exists?

See the difference?

Your qualification leaves a wide bearth to the point that it appears vacuous.

Now now. Play nice.

The arrogance of man knows no limits.

You mustn't forget that any argument that denies I can be justifiably confident about any given matter and is simply arrogant also applies to you.

No, I don't know what you meant.

Yes, you do. Don't play games with me. I don't appreciate it.

Sure, all acts are context dependent. Which would be a problem if morals were necessarily inherent in the act.

It's a problem that has yet to be addressed. If I steal candy from a child then the morality is in there somewhere. You have the act and the context. I don't think it's that difficult. Why is it a problem for you?

I'm not, but if there isn't an intrinsic objective morality then there is still the objective morality that is imposed by whoever is the most powerful and is the most willing to impose their values upon others.

If someone wants to impose their will on others then that will happen however one determines morality, be it objective or subjective. If enough people consider something to be wrong then that society will deem it wrong. They may decide on punishment for doing what they consider to be wrong. Again, that happens whether morality is subjective or objective. If it's an argument that applies to both, it's useless.

There are no simple moral problems...

Should I ruin my shoes to save the child? It seems simple to me And you asked the question precisely because it's a simple moral problem. So I'd say that you're wrong.

but the existence of moral complexity has no bearing on whether or not objective morality exists.

If you can't determine what the objective moral position actually is, then it's a complete waste of time claiming that it exists.

Perhaps if you took the time to try to understand what is being argued, rather than arguing with pre-conceived targets that are easily discounted you would be able to answer this. It's not smoke and mirrors, it just seems that way because you're flattening the discussion and creating a false dilemma.

It's galactically simple. Is an act right or wrong in itself? Or only relative to the context. Neither you nor anyone else addressed that in any way that approaches a reasonable argument I'm afraid.

Why should the answer change? What is the pertinent difference?

Maybe you've only come across the question and not the context. Singer asked it to highlight the different ways we help others. It's a simple answer when it's the drowning kid and new shoes. We can all answer it because it's a black and white question in that context. But me not going out to dinner and send the money to a charity which might eventuate in a child's life being saved? That is a lot more nuanced. More difficult to answer. And, what Singer wanted to show, people don't like answering it because it makes them think about what they do themselves. It's why you won't answer it.

I reserve my judgment for those who share my values...

Oh, good grief. You obviously don't. You are judging me right now because of my arguments and my beliefs.

There's nothing hard about your question, and I've given you my answer which you seem to recognize through familiarity with Singer's example. What makes you think its a hard question?

Because you haven't answered it. It's not easy to answer although It's a simple yes or no. Am I wealthy? Do I have money to spare? Is it a special ocassions? Do I give generously to charities anyway? You gave the Singer question in response because it's a blazingly simple question to answer in contrast. It's why Singer asked it, to highlight the difference between the two questions.

It appears that you don't understand that.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, if we have no final cause then there is no point in making moral evaluations. If all we are expressing is personal preferences, then there is no reason to expect such things to matter to anyone but ourselves.

Isn't it your personal preference that your family is safe and happy?

 

[Bradskii]

All you're doing is creating a moral standard that amounts to nothing more than what is popular is right...

That's a fallacy. We don't vote on what is right or wrong. If we all individually agree that something is wrong then we can all take steps to prevent someone from doing it. We each think that stealing personal goods is generally wrong and it seems that almost everyone agrees (even thieves know it's wrong). So...we make laws to punish those that steal.

It's why gay marriage is legal but stealing my car isn't. Enough people individually came to those decisions.

Democracy, eh?

 

[Bradskii]

Assissted human reasoning is reasoning that has had information arising from an external source..

Can we have an example please.