Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 2)

[TagliatelliMonster]

Side comment.... it is kind of funny you posted that graph and said "that is empty space right there" as proof that the universe can pop into existence from nothing.

I don't remember making that claim at all. Perhaps you could quote me, to prove otherwise?
Or, you could appologise for putting words in my mouth.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't remember making that claim at all. Perhaps you could quote me, to prove otherwise?
Or, you could appologise for putting words in my mouth.

When you read that, did you get flashbacks to the Creation and Evolution subforum and people asking, "Yeah, but you can't prove abiogenesis so evolution isn't true!" too?

 

[ExodusMe]

The problem with that "if", is that it simply isn't true in reality.
I don't see how genocide (= the indiscriminate killing of a large group of people based on some trait like skin color, religion, ethnicity, etc) could ever promote well-being. Today or in the future.
It's like saying "if the eiffel tower was small enough, would it fit in your pocket?"
Well... yeah... but.... The eiffel tower isn't small enough........................................

In philosophy it is common to use possible worlds speech to determine the validity of a view. Even if it is not the case, we can imagine a world where it is possible that genocide would promote the well-being of future generations. That is sufficient enough to show that Harris' view is incoherent philosophically.

No, I never said that. See first line of this post. I didn't say "pleasure". I said "well-being".

If on one hand you have suffering... then the other side of the spectrum is pleasure (or well being... or whatever you want to call it). Unless you are comparing apples to oranges?

 

[Moral Orel]

In philosophy it is common to use possible worlds speech to determine the validity of a view. Even if it is not the case, we can imagine a world where it is possible that genocide would promote the well-being of future generations. That is sufficient enough to show that Harris' view is incoherent philosophically.

So you're saying that a view which says genocide is ever okay is incoherent philosophically?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In philosophy it is common to use possible worlds speech to determine the validity of a view. Even if it is not the case, we can imagine a world where it is possible that genocide would promote the well-being of future generations.

Perhaps that's why philosophy has lost any and all ability to contribute to progress in the natural sciences: the validity of a view concerning reality, is not determined by seeing if it fits imaginary worlds.... It's determined by seeing if it fits the actual world we live in.

It doesn't get you anywhere to apply it to imaginary worlds.
For example, imagine a world were women had an instinctive aversion to sex. Rape would be the only way to reproduce. Then rape would not only not be immoral, it would be a moral duty.

How is such a thought process relevant to developing a moral framework for how we should behave in actual reality?

That is sufficient enough to show that Harris' view is incoherent philosophically.

The only thing it seems sufficient for, is to ask the "what if" question about how an immoral act in our reality, would not be an immoral act in a fantasy world.

Let's turn that around...
What if God commands you to buy a kalasjnikov and loads of ammo, go entrench yourself in some busy mall and shoot as many people as you can?

If on one hand you have suffering... then the other side of the spectrum is pleasure (or well being... or whatever you want to call it). Unless you are comparing apples to oranges?

Well-being of all sentient life, is a lot more encompassing then just mere "pleasure".
For starters, "pleasure" is completely subjective to the individual. Well-being isn't.

 

[ExodusMe]

So you're saying that a view which says genocide is ever okay is incoherent philosophically?

No I meant incoherent in relation to his previous claims.

 

[ExodusMe]

Perhaps that's why philosophy has lost any and all ability to contribute to progress in the natural sciences: the validity of a view concerning reality, is not determined by seeing if it fits imaginary worlds.... It's determined by seeing if it fits the actual world we live in.

It doesn't get you anywhere to apply it to imaginary worlds.
For example, imagine a world were women had an instinctive aversion to sex. Rape would be the only way to reproduce. Then rape would not only not be immoral, it would be a moral duty.

How is such a thought process relevant to developing a moral framework for how we should behave in actual reality?

The only thing it seems sufficient for, is to ask the "what if" question about how an immoral act in our reality, would not be an immoral act in a fantasy world.

Let's turn that around...
What if God commands you to buy a kalasjnikov and loads of ammo, go entrench yourself in some busy mall and shoot as many people as you can?

Well-being of all sentient life, is a lot more encompassing then just mere "pleasure".
For starters, "pleasure" is completely subjective to the individual. Well-being isn't.

The point is that I don't have to have a tangible scenario to show that a situation could arise where genocide would promote the well being of future generations, not because it isn't possible, but because it is incredibly EASY to imagine that it could (hence POSSIBILITY). An easy example is genocide of handicapped people. Someone believes that well being (or pleasure) is constituted by a persons mental capacity, so genocide of the mentally handicapped is reasonable to them.

This topic is just getting confused as it should be about the equivocation as used in Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape".

Sam Harris' model of well being is not moral. There is nothing moral about pleasure and suffering. As we know pleasure is not always morally good and suffering is not always morally evil. This is equivocation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The point is that I don't have to have a tangible scenario to show that a situation could arise where genocide would promote the well being of future generations

Let's imagine that you could come up with such a scenario. I don't see how that's possible, but let's.

That still wouldn't make genocide a moral act in general. In that case, it would be restricted to that specific scenario.

, not because it isn't possible, but because it is incredibly EASY to imagine that it could (hence POSSIBILITY). An easy example is genocide of handicapped people. Someone believes that well being (or pleasure) is constituted by a persons mental capacity, so genocide of the mentally handicapped is reasonable to them.

First, for the umpteenth time, well-being and pleasure are not the same thing.

Secondly, I'ld love to see the argument that states that the mass-murder of handicapped people will promote well-being for anyone.

Sam Harris' model of well being is not moral.

You keep saying this, but you never give a proper explanation for why it isn't.
Under the model of Harris, your example is complete nonsense even.

In this model, it would never be moral to mass slaughter handicapped people.

There is nothing moral about pleasure and suffering.

Not "pleasure". Well-being. Do you really not understand the difference?
And yes, well-being and suffering by themselves are not moral or immoral.

ACTIONS are moral and immoral.
And an action that increases suffering is an immoral act.
If you disagree with that, then I can only wonder what you mean by the word "immoral". Perhaps this is a good time for you to explain what you mean by that word, if not something that increases suffering and/or decreases well-being.

As we know pleasure is not always morally good and suffering is not always morally evil. This is equivocation.

Not pleasure. Well-being.

And once again: suffering and well-being are not actions that can be valued as being moral or immoral. ACTIONS can be evaluated as moral or immoral.

So, how do YOU suggest to do that?
Take actions X. How do YOU go about evaluating if X is moral or immoral?

And I note you ignored my other question as well, concerning when God commands you to go on a killing spree. Colour me unsurprised.

 

[Moral Orel]

First, for the umpteenth time, well-being and pleasure are not the same thing.

Not "pleasure". Well-being.

Not pleasure. Well-being.

Didn't ExodusMe start in this thread by accusing Harris of equivocating terms?

 

[ExodusMe]

Seems like no progress is being made toward understanding each other.

Let me make my argument clear

1) Sam Harris affirms objective moral truths "I am simply saying that, given that there are facts— real facts—to be known about how conscious creatures can experience the worst possible misery and the greatest possible well-being, it is objectively true to say that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, whether or not we can always answer these questions in practice." Page 26

2) On a naturalist worldview there is no such thing as objective moral values and duties because moral values and duties are byproducts of biological evolution. Therefore, on a naturalist view, our moral values and duties only exist to promote the well being of conscious creatures.

3) To solve this "objectivity problem" Sam Harris equivocates good and evil with well being "Now that we have consciousness on the table, my further claim is that the concept of “well-being” captures all that we can intelligibly value. And “morality”—whatever people’s associations with this term happen to be— really relates to the intentions and behaviors that affect the well-being of conscious creatures" Page 27

This quote is one of the clearest examples of equivocation in his book. He is taking "well being" and defining it to mean "moral good and evil". This is because on naturalism there is no objective good and evil. The only purpose of morals, on naturalism, is what is conducive to the flourishing of sentient life.

Sam Harris' equivocation and misunderstanding of objective moral values and duties has been agreed upon by atheists and theists alike. I'm not speaking off the cuff here.

With that I will have to say g'day my lad as I don't think I can make it any clearer.

 

[KCfromNC]

2) On a naturalist worldview there is no such thing as objective moral values and duties because moral values and duties are byproducts of biological evolution.

You're going to have to show your work here. Why does a lack of the supernatural exclude objective moral values?

 

[ExodusMe]

I said why in the quote you quoted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1) Sam Harris affirms objective moral truths "I am simply saying that, given that there are facts— real facts—to be known about how conscious creatures can experience the worst possible misery and the greatest possible well-being, it is objectively true to say that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, whether or not we can always answer these questions in practice." Page 26

I agree completely.
Given that "moral" are those things that take us closer to the greatest possible well-being and "immoral" are those things that take us closer to the worst possible suffering, then we can simply look at the facts and judge the facts accordingly and objectively.

2) On a naturalist worldview there is no such thing as objective moral values and duties because moral values and duties are byproducts of biological evolution. Therefore, on a naturalist view, our moral values and duties only exist to promote the well being of conscious creatures.

First, I don't see how in a theistic worldview, there would be "objective" morals. In fact, I'ld argue the exact opposite.

In a theistic morality framework, we are talking about "divine command theory".
That's the very opposite of "objective" moralitly. Because morals there are simply whatever the perceived authority "commands". They are thus subjective in context of that "authority".

Because in that worldview, things are "good" only because the authority says so.
If it would be the other way round, that the authority commands X because X is inherently good - no matter what the authority actually says... Then morality would be objective regardless of any authorities commanding anything.

However, in the model presented by Harris, one can make actual object moral judgements, because now it is no longer based on anyone's opinions or commandments.
Now, the judgements are concluded from the actual facts and the very real consequences of those actions.

It doesn't get more objective then that.

In that sense, it really isn't surprising that just about every culture around the world has come up with similar moral ideas, most of which never received the "10 commandments" or whatever revelation from the religion you happen to believe in.

There is no culture in this world where anyone is free to murder whoever they please, for example.

Every society/tribe that ever walked this planet had some kind of moral limits, rules of conduct, what have you.

3) To solve this "objectivity problem" Sam Harris equivocates good and evil with well being
"Now that we have consciousness on the table, my further claim is that the concept of “well-being” captures all that we can intelligibly value. And “morality”—whatever people’s associations with this term happen to be— really relates to the intentions and behaviors that affect the well-being of conscious creatures" Page 27

I see no problem with that.
Seems perfectly sensible.

This quote is one of the clearest examples of equivocation in his book. He is taking "well being" and defining it to mean "moral good and evil".

No, that's not at all what that quote is saying. I wonder how you even concluded such.

What he is saying is that morality (good/evil) relates to the intentions and behaviours that affect well-being.

When you rape someone, you inflict suffering upon the victim and likely her loved-ones.
When you feed the hungry, you increase their well-being.

Why else would rape be evil and feeding the hungry good?

Again I have to ask you that same question: if that isn't what you mean by "moral" and "immoral", then what DO you mean by it?

This is because on naturalism there is no objective good and evil

We can objectively determine the difference between well-being and suffering.
We can objectively determine what the consequences of actions are and how they affect the well-being and suffering.

What is the problem?

The only purpose of morals, on naturalism, is what is conducive to the flourishing of sentient life.

What other purpose is there for morality?
What does morality mean, if not that?

Sam Harris' equivocation

He isn't equivocating anything, as I have explained.
It seems you simply misunderstood.

With that I will have to say g'day my lad as I don't think I can make it any clearer.

The only way you could really make it clearer, is to actually answer my question:
If by "immoral" you do not mean "that which increases suffering or decreases well-being";
If by "moral" you do not mean "that which decreases suffering or increases well-being";
Then what DO you mean by it?

If I ask you "what is moral behaviour" and "what is immoral behaviour"?
Then what would be YOUR answers?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree completely.
Given that "moral" are those things that take us closer to the greatest possible well-being and "immoral" are those things that take us closer to the worst possible suffering, then we can simply look at the facts and judge the facts accordingly and objectively.




First, I don't see how in a theistic worldview, there would be "objective" morals. In fact, I'ld argue the exact opposite.

In a theistic morality framework, we are talking about "divine command theory".
That's the very opposite of "objective" moralitly. Because morals there are simply whatever the perceived authority "commands". They are thus subjective in context of that "authority".

Because in that worldview, things are "good" only because the authority says so.
If it would be the other way round, that the authority commands X because X is inherently good - no matter what the authority actually says... Then morality would be objective regardless of any authorities commanding anything.

However, in the model presented by Harris, one can make actual object moral judgements, because now it is no longer based on anyone's opinions or commandments.
Now, the judgements are concluded from the actual facts and the very real consequences of those actions.

It doesn't get more objective then that.

In that sense, it really isn't surprising that just about every culture around the world has come up with similar moral ideas, most of which never received the "10 commandments" or whatever revelation from the religion you happen to believe in.

There is no culture in this world where anyone is free to murder whoever they please, for example.

Every society/tribe that ever walked this planet had some kind of moral limits, rules of conduct, what have you.




I see no problem with that.
Seems perfectly sensible.



No, that's not at all what that quote is saying. I wonder how you even concluded such.

What he is saying is that morality (good/evil) relates to the intentions and behaviours that affect well-being.

When you rape someone, you inflict suffering upon the victim and likely her loved-ones.
When you feed the hungry, you increase their well-being.

Why else would rape be evil and feeding the hungry good?

Again I have to ask you that same question: if that isn't what you mean by "moral" and "immoral", then what DO you mean by it?



We can objectively determine the difference between well-being and suffering.
We can objectively determine what the consequences of actions are and how they affect the well-being and suffering.

What is the problem?




What other purpose is there for morality?
What does morality mean, if not that?



He isn't equivocating anything, as I have explained.
It seems you simply misunderstood.



The only way you could really make it clearer, is to actually answer my question:
If by "immoral" you do not mean "that which increases suffering or decreases well-being";
If by "moral" you do not mean "that which decreases suffering or increases well-being";
Then what DO you mean by it?

If I ask you "what is moral behaviour" and "what is immoral behaviour"?
Then what would be YOUR answers?

My answer would be that ... it depends.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My answer would be that ... it depends.

On what?

It seems really hard to get straight answers here.

Let's go through it step by step....

Consider the statement:
"Immoral behaviour is behaviour that increases suffering and/or decreases well-being"

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
If you disagree, what is wrong with it or what is missing and why?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

On what?

It seems really hard to get straight answers here.

Let's go through it step by step....

Consider the statement:
"Immoral behaviour is behaviour that increases suffering and/or decreases well-being"

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
If you disagree, what is wrong with it or what is missing and why?

At the moment, I find the term "well-being" to be ambiguous. Who gets to define it? Do you get to define it 'for me'? What if my idea as to what my own "well-being" is differs from your own personal idea as to what constitutes "well-being"? Don't we have to establish an absolute definition of "well-being"? If not, then it becomes equivocal in its usage; it becomes a wax-nose.

Moreover, there also isn't any rule under any rock or one written on any sunbeam that I know of that tells us specifically, and irrefutably, which ethical framework we HAVE to use as human beings by which we will determine and define the right or best moral courses of action. Which of the following should we rely upon for our moral valuations: Should we be Utilitarians, or Deontologists instead; or advocates of (various) Ethics of Care, or give ourselves to the customary mores of our respective nations, or posit Situation Ethics, or ethics of Self-Realization, or Virtue Ethics, or Ethics of Evolutionary Naturalism...or invoke the moral nuances of one of a variety of religions?

Which is it? Somehow, you seem to know...along with Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty.

2PhiloVoid

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At the moment, I find the term "well-being" to be ambiguous.

Why?
Which would you classify as "well-being":
- sick as opposed to healthy
- in captivity as opposed to free
- in pain as opposed to not in pain
- having enough food versus being hungry
- being illiterate as opposed to literate
- being happy as opposed to depressed
- feeling appreciated/loved as opposed to being lonely
- ...

It really doesn't seem hard to me to understand what "well-being" is about as opposed to "suffering".

Who gets to define it?

I'ld ask "what" instead. And that "what" would be the facts of reality.
I mean, does it really need explaining that being healthy is preferable to being sick?
That feeling good is preferable to being in pain?

What if my idea as to what my own "well-being" is differs from your own personal idea as to what constitutes "well-being"?

I don't see how it is a matter of opinion.
Is the difference between "in pain" and "not in pain", a matter of opinion?
Between "sick" and "healthy"?
Between "slave" and "free"?

Don't we have to establish an absolute definition of "well-being"?

I'ld argue that we have that allready. Sure, what constitutes "well-being" surely can change over time as we learn more about humans and reality, but it nevertheless is defined by the facts of reality (that we know about) - not by anyones mere opinion.

Moreover, there also isn't any rule under any rock or one written on any sunbeam that I know of that tells us specifically, and irrefutably, which ethical framework we HAVE to use as human beings by which we will determine and define the right or best moral courses of action.

I never claimed there is. Obviously, any moral framework we adhere to, will be something that only exist out of necessity of the human condition. Remove humans and you'll succesfully delete any moral framework which is an inherent part of humanity.

But, again, if the goal/point of morals is not to increase well-being / decrease suffering.... then what do you mean by morals???


As Sam Harris himself says: if you can't agree that 'immoral behaviour' are those behaviours that increase suffering... then I don't know what you are talking about when you use the word "morality"

Which of the following should we rely upon for our moral valuations: Should we be Utilitarians, or Deontologists instead; or advocates of (various) Ethics of Care, or give ourselves to the customary mores of our respective nations, or posit Situation Ethics, or ethics of Self-Realization, or Virtue Ethics, or Ethics of Evolutionary Naturalism...or invoke the moral nuances of one of a variety of religions?

Which is it? Somehow, you seem to know...along with Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty.

I don't care for all those labels, nore do I know what they all mean.

Again, it's rather logical for me...
Moral = that which decreases suffering / increases well-being
Immoral = that which increases suffering / decreases well-being

And I just go from there. I can't think of a single act where I would come to the "wrong" conclusion, using those very simple premises/standards. Can you?

That is not to say that making moral evaluations is always easy... if it were, there would be no such thing as a "moral dilemma".

I'm just saying, it seems like a perfectly rational basis for a moral compass and I have yet to hear a single sensible argument against it.

So far, all I got was something along the lines of "but, but.... you're not appealing to the supernatural or some authority!!! so...there!"

And off course, without any sort of explanation of why it's apparantly necessary to have such an authority or supernatural ingredient.

 

[ExodusMe]

You are so blind to logic it is maddening. Everything you just said pretty much confirms Sam Harris' equivocation. I can't believe you don't see this. I am almost convinced you are just pretending not to see it and are just messing with us at this point.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why?

I answered that in my previous post....the meaning of "well-being" is open to equivocal usage.

Which would you classify as "well-being":
- sick as opposed to healthy
- in captivity as opposed to free
- in pain as opposed to not in pain
- having enough food versus being hungry
- being illiterate as opposed to literate
- being happy as opposed to depressed
- feeling appreciated/loved as opposed to being lonely
- ...

It really doesn't seem hard to me to understand what "well-being" is about as opposed to "suffering".

Sick as opposed to healthy? Really. So, when we wish to immunize children against diseases, and we know going into the procedure that there usually remains a risk, however small (?), that some children will be adversely affected by the immunization itself, then....by your understanding, that only requires sheer logic to discern the moral (right) course of action on behalf of the "well-being" of any individual child. And in which case, you think you're only using sheer logic, but not really subscribing to any particular form of ethical framework by which you've made a decision as to what the moral thing is to do?

Really? Do you think this? If this is the case, please never, ever work on an ethics board for any health institution...or for any other institution for that matter.

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why?
Which would you classify as "well-being":
- sick as opposed to healthy
- in captivity as opposed to free
- in pain as opposed to not in pain
- having enough food versus being hungry
- being illiterate as opposed to literate
- being happy as opposed to depressed
- feeling appreciated/loved as opposed to being lonely
- ...

It really doesn't seem hard to me to understand what "well-being" is about as opposed to "suffering".

...and do the concepts of satisfaction or gratification play a part in your definition of "well-being"? Do you consider a state of dissatisfaction or being ungratified to be a form of "suffering"? Is all pain 'bad'? How much food is "enough" in consideration of those who have voracious appetites? Should they be appeased on all counts? Or is that "suffering"?

Literacy? What kind of literacy? Just reading and writing? Or do you think that other literacies that come with being in a culture should be seen also as a part of "well-being"? Who gets to enforce or provide it these literacies?

Happiness? What if something morally and socially degrading or harmful makes someone "happy"? Does this get mixed into your definition of individual "well-being"? If not, why not?

Does "well-being" only get considered in individual terms, or does it also relate to "well-being" of social groups? What if one group has to give up some of its rights to make room for the well-being of another group? How does that play out in your definition of "well-being"?

And we can go on. Obviously, you seem to imply that sheer logic can figure this all out, and without any specific ethical label or framework to boot! How wonderful for you!

2PhiloVoid