Morality without Absolute Morality

[Stopped_lurking]

Nah, because we've established no common ground for engagement so there's no point in just swapping opinions.

Ok, your opinion is noted. Just so we are clear, I do believe that we can measure knowledge by testing although the process is imperfect.

 

[Fervent]

Ok, your opinion is noted. Just so we are clear, I do believe that we can measure knowledge by testing although the process is imperfect.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I have no idea what you mean by that.

You said that god have the authority to tell others how they should behave. When questioned about why god have that authority, you said that it was connected to knowledge.

Then I asked what do god know, and how do we know what god knows? So I put forth that we could test what god knows with standardised tests.

Then you said something about opinions, and that there was no common ground for discussions. But I do believe knowledge is able to be measured and we can surely find a measure we could apply to god to see if god has enough knowledge to have the authority to determine how people should behave.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you claim, but you are speaking from ignorance.

I don't know where humans come from? Seriously man, this is basic knowledge. All humans grow from a single cell to adulthood. (Or did you spontaneously pop into existence?)

Uh huh.

I really don't care what you care about, all you have is opinions and you expect me to care about those.

"Nature" is a non-existent concept, it's not a place and exists no where outside the human mind as a means of categorizing contingent things.

Then what is this "nature" you speak of?

Existence is a category that doesn't apply to truth statements. The conversation isn''t what's confused, it's you that is confused.

What good is the "truth" of a non-existence? You bet I am confused. You speak in gibberish.

It's not meant to be an argument, simply clarification because you don't seem to understand my position at all.

he'd be as qualified as you.

It's not a sensible position. You are just making assertions about the god you believe in somehow granting properties to "truths" by merely existing.

Uh huh

Sure, but there's no reason to take them seriously since they're all just people's personal preferences. All that matters in that case is how much we're willing to force others to comply with what we want, so discussion is rather pointless.

And so?

Not as something that actually exists, and when "naturalists" talk about it I often find them unable to provide me with a sensible definition or any foundation to their epistemology.

Stuff that exists and demonstrable. That is my basis.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you're proposing that the objective standard for morality is established via authority... is that correct? Via edict.

That is correct, no matter how much it is denied. All you will get are the presuppositions of existing personal preferences.

 

[Fervent]

I don't know where humans come from? Seriously man, this is basic knowledge. All humans grow from a single cell to adulthood. (Or did you spontaneously pop into existence?)

Not ultimately, no.

Then what is this "nature" you speak of?

God's nature, as in His essence

What good is the "truth" of a non-existence? You bet I am confused. You speak in gibberish.

Existence is a category for objects, not truths. Truths either obtain or they don't, but there are numerous ways for a truth to obtain.

It's not a sensible position. You are just making assertions about the god you believe in somehow granting properties to "truths" by merely existing.

what you consider sensible is of no interest to me.

And so?

And so assertion is as good an argument as any.

Stuff that exists and demonstrable. That is my basis.

"Demonstrable"? By what means? And to whom? We're quickly treading towards the diallelus.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not ultimately, no.

Did you emerge from a jar of honey, or are you a regular human like the rest of us. Your confusion on the topic of where humans come from is baffling.

God's nature, as in His essence

Why should morality depend on what a god is made of?

Existence is a category for objects, not truths. Truths either obtain or they don't, but there are numerous ways for a truth to obtain.

what you consider sensible is of no interest to me.

And so assertion is as good an argument as any.

"Demonstrable"? By what means? And to whom? We're quickly treading towards the diallelus.

I must conclude that there is no discussion available with you. You have made it clear that you hold that morality is a brute fact of reality because your god exists and because that is why morality exists, morality must be objective (as your god has no apparent mind to which morality is subject) and perhaps absolute. You will not even discuss with in any other possible framework or consider even a divinely imposed subjective (to the god) morality.

 

[Fervent]

Did you emerge from a jar of honey, or are you a regular human like the rest of us. Your confusion on the topic of where humans come from is baffling.

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "ultimately"?

Why should morality depend on what a god is made of?

What better option do you have?

I must conclude that there is no discussion available with you. You have made it clear that you hold that morality is a brute fact of reality because your god exists and because that is why morality exists, morality must be objective (as your god has no apparent mind to which morality is subject) and perhaps absolute. You will not even discuss with in any other possible framework or consider even a divinely imposed subjective (to the god) morality.

Sure, but you hold that morality is sheer subjective opinion and expect that to be taken seriously. So what hope was there for discussion to begin with?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "ultimately"?

The first item on an infinite regress of causation. I am more disturbed by you thinking humans are "created".

Since I can only go back to the start of the expansion of our Universe (known as the Big Bang) before all is lost to the inaccesible murkiness of the electromagnetic spectrum and the limits on force unification, I must stop there. I thought just your confusion about where people come from was far enough and you wouldn't want me to explain it all through galactic structure formation, the late heavy bombardment, and RNA autocatalysis.

What better option do you have?

Read better literature. That would be my advice.

Sure, but you hold that morality is sheer subjective opinion and expect that to be taken seriously. So what hope was there for discussion to begin with?

Just as I know the Earth is gooey below me. I learn to live with it.

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "ultimately"?

Thank you. I assume that you're switching to solipsism now. Anything else would be disingenuous.

What better option do you have?

I'll give it a shot, morality is simply this... do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God. God in this case simply being the entirety of life... all that is, and all that you believe.

Humility wrapped in justice and mercy, if there's a higher standard for morality than this, I can't imagine what it could be. The problem as I see it, doesn't rest in finding the standard, it rests in achieving it.

Sure, but you hold that morality is sheer subjective opinion and expect that to be taken seriously.

As a solipsist I expect very little from others. You're free to follow your morals, and I'm free to follow mine. That's it... period... end of story.

However, society and its social norms are precisely what you get when you put those two simple rules into practice. You get a balance between my right to act in accordance with my morals, and your right to act in accordance with your morals.

Now this balance can fluctuate from time to time and place to place as balances are wont to do, but they'll always be adequate to the time and place in which they occur. And they'll always give their adherents the sense that they couldn't possibly be otherwise.

Morality is simply nature doing what nature always does... find a balance between two or more opposing forces such that nature, and only nature, is the true arbiter of what's moral.

 

[Fervent]

The first item on an infinite regress of causation. I am more disturbed by you thinking humans are "created".

An absurdity, but unsurprising you would believe such a thing.

Since I can only go back to the start of the expansion of our Universe (known as the Big Bang) before all is lost to the inaccesible murkiness of the electromagnetic spectrum and the limits on force unification, I must stop there. I thought just your confusion about where people come from was far enough and you wouldn't want me to explain it all through galactic structure formation, the late heavy bombardment, and RNA autocatalysis.

Stopping short before you hit bottom, unsurprising.

Read better literature. That would be my advice.

I've read enough, nothing worthwhile has presented itself.

Just as I know the Earth is gooey below me. I learn to live with it.

Inconsistently.

 

[Fervent]

Thank you. I assume that you're switching to solipsism now. Anything else would be disingenuous.

Nope, and it's clear to me that neither do you. So why do you pretend that you do?

I'll give it a shot, morality is simply this... do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God. God in this case simply being the entirety of life... all that is, and all that you believe.

God is not "the entirety of life", but you're certainly onto something quoting Micah.

Humility wrapped in justice and mercy, if there's a higher standard for morality than this, I can't imagine what it could be. The problem as I see it, doesn't rest in finding the standard, it rests in achieving it.

The Good is the only standard for morality that there is.

As a solipsist I expect very little from others. You're free to follow your morals, and I'm free to follow mine. That's it... period... end of story.

Given your participation in this thread, I find your claim of solipsism disingenuous..unless you don't know what that term means.

However, society and its social norms are precisely what you get when you put those two simple rules into practice. You get a balance between my right to act in accordance with my morals, and your right to act in accordance with your morals.

"Right"? Where do these "rights" come from?

Now this balance can fluctuate from time to time and place to place as balances are wont to do, but they'll always be adequate to the time and place in which they occur. And they'll always give their adherents the sense that they couldn't possibly be otherwise.

Uh huh...but none of this has to do with establishing what morality entails. It's rather uninteresting description.

Morality is simply nature doing what nature always does... find a balance between two or more opposing forces such that nature, and only nature, is the true arbiter of what's moral.

Mere assertion, based on nothing but your personal opinion. So why should I take anything you say seriously?

 

[Hans Blaster]

An absurdity, but unsurprising you would believe such a thing.

I was surprised you were asking for something so absurd as the "ultimate" in an infinite regress of causes. I thought you knew "philosophy" better than that.

Stopping short before you hit bottom, unsurprising.

I would go further, but the CMB, BBN, and GUTs limit my view of the earlier days when thing where hot and dense.

I've read enough, nothing worthwhile has presented itself.

One book seems to have been fairly influential and detrimental to your approach to and comprehension of morality.

Inconsistently.

I understand that some people are extremely unconfortable with the inconsistency of our messy world. If you expressed such, I could have sympathy, but not for enforcing rigidity where none is apparent.

 

[Fervent]

I was surprised you were asking for something so absurd as the "ultimate" in an infinite regress of causes. I thought you knew "philosophy" better than that.

Yes, an infinite regress is absurd as an explanation since all explanation drains away.

I would go further, but the CMB, BBN, and GUTs limit my view of the earlier days when thing where hot and dense.

Uh huh.

One book seems to have been fairly influential and detrimental to your approach to and comprehension of morality.

Not detrimental in any way, you just can't see past your own materialist dogma to appreciate it.

I understand that some people are extremely unconfortable with the inconsistency of our messy world. If you expressed such, I could have sympathy, but not for enforcing rigidity where none is apparent.

It's not the world's inconsistency that I am speaking of, but your failure to follow the rabbit trail to its ultimate end and instead accept inconsistent half measures.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, an infinite regress is absurd as an explanation since all explanation drains away.

So you do understand why an "ultimate cause" for morality is absurd. Excellent.

Uh huh.

Not detrimental in any way, you just can't see past your own materialist dogma to appreciate it.

You don't need to be a "materialist" to see what is wrong with that text, factually and morally, but it is also quite incomplete as a moral guide even if it wasn't.

It's not the world's inconsistency that I am speaking of, but your failure to follow the rabbit trail to its ultimate end and instead accept inconsistent half measures.

No, I reject your "solution" as mere belief.

 

[Fervent]

So you do understand why an "ultimate cause" for morality is absurd. Excellent.

I understand that it's morally bankrupt to twist people's words. So it's nice your true colors are starting to shine through.

You don't need to be a "materialist" to see what is wrong with that text, factually and morally, but it is also quite incomplete as a moral guide even if it wasn't.

Sure, but my faith isn't in a text.

No, I reject your "solution" as mere belief.

Cool, so what do you call your belief about an infinite regress?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I understand that it's morally bankrupt to twist people's words. So it's nice your true colors are starting to shine through.

Pardon for thinking you actually understood a simple word. I shall not make that mistake again.

Sure, but my faith isn't in a text.

I wasn't speaking of faith, but an insufficient text. If you don't derive your position on the "ultimate" source from the text, from whence it comes?

Cool, so what do you call your belief about an infinite regress?

What belief? That I can't see the beginning because it is blocked observational. That one? I'd call it supported by evidence. There are some that like to play around with notions of imagining past those limits, but I am not interested is speculative cosmology. Too unfirm and lacking foundation from my taste.

 

[Fervent]

Pardon for thinking you actually understood a simple word. I shall not make that mistake again.

The issue isn't understanding, it's your twisting my response into something that it wasn't. Perhaps you don't understand my criticism?

I wasn't speaking of faith, but an insufficient text. If you don't derive your position on the "ultimate" source from the text, from whence it comes?

A person.

What belief? That I can't see the beginning because it is blocked observational. That one? I'd call it supported by evidence. There are some that like to play around with notions of imagining past those limits, but I am not interested is speculative cosmology. Too unfirm and lacking foundation from my taste.

The belief that there is no "ultimate", that it is turtles all the way down.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The issue isn't understanding, it's your twisting my response into something that it wasn't. Perhaps you don't understand my criticism?

Perhaps you don't understand the sarcasm (or intentional absurdity) of statement about the first entry in an infinite regress. I would have thought you'd catch that. Or was it that it wasn't "ultimate" that you reacted to as "An absurdity", but rather it was the other item in the prior post that was your singular "such a thing" -- the biological fact that humans are not created, either as individuals (we grow from a single cell) or species (we evolved from prior apes)?

A person.

Which makes it subjective. Checkmate theists!

The belief that there is no "ultimate", that it is turtles all the way down.

Just floating on the infinite river of time...

 

[Fervent]

Perhaps you don't understand the sarcasm (or intentional absurdity) of statement about the first entry in an infinite regress. I would have thought you'd catch that. Or was it that it wasn't "ultimate" that you reacted to as "An absurdity", but rather it was the other item in the prior post that was your singular "such a thing" -- the biological fact that humans are not created, either as individuals (we grow from a single cell) or species (we evolved from prior apes)?

I understand the absurdity, but the absurdity is in the idea of an infinite regress to begin with because everything drains away to nothing in an infinite regress

Which makes it subjective. Checkmate theists!

Nope, at least not when "subjectivity" and "objectivity" are properly understood.

Just floating on the infinite river of time...

Uh huh, that's just your belief.