Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Consciousness is big. It is bigger than you could possibly imagine. It's just not tangible or measurable.
Nope, it's a logical fallacy even when you find the results important.
Fair enough - the fact that you are an amoral sociopath except for your belief is a good reason to keep believing for all our sakes, but it doesn't make your beliefs true.
The consequences of those actions. You know, physical harm, being removed from society, death, those kind of things. Humans don't survive all that well in isolation - we need the help of others to really thrive. If we don't follow basic rules of morality, other people aren't going to find it in their interest to help you and you're going to find life difficult.
I think we are on complete opposite poles of the spectrum, then. I suspect that morality is something completely subjective - springing from the legislating will of an authority who is qualified to administer the moral law in his identity as perfect Law-giver. All other concerns of the "good" or "desirable" are merely peripheral matters that do not touch on the inherent force of what morality truly consists of.... Of course, I'm not saying that these peripheral matters should be dispensed with, or that morality should be shorn of all content. What I think is that if you want actual law instead of simply "rules" you need the will of a subjective being backing it.Choice-worthy has nothing to do with desire. If something is worthy of choice, it is something that is good for oneself. In other words, it is not merely chosen (or desired), it is worthy of choice (or desirable). I'm an ethical naturalist, not a moral subjectivist.
I understand that we change as humans. There is a sort of goal-directedness most of us take to exist. Though whether that is merely the outcome of contingency and no real “purpose” exists (as I suspect) or the actual template of an eternal Telos or universal end which various beings attend to, I can’t say for certain. In any case, I don’t see how or why anyone would be interested in grounding ethics by hooking it to this actualization of potential. What if my actualization of potential consists of becoming a punk rocker who snorts cocaine and abuses groupies?You don't buy it? Or you don't understand it?
Human maturation is an example of the actualization of human potentials. Children have the potential to become adults. The actualization of the child's potential for adulthood could be called "growth". This is just an obvious example. We may grow in many ways, not just physically.
Why should you side with flourishing as opposed to non-flourishing?That, and the fact that it is individuals that actualize their potentials. IOWs, flourishing as a process pertains to individuals.
All that sounds very exciting but I just do not see what any of it has to do with morality in the sense (not that it is bereft of such content as ‘benefiting’We benefit from the uniqueness of others. If I have a talent for physics, and you have a talent for engineering, together we may achieve what either of us alone cannot. Generally speaking, our respective efforts to live a good life do not require conflict. Our human capacity to use reason and language to coordinate our activities mean that we can cooperate, trade, share, or agree to leave each other alone.
Yes, this is where I find myself in a bit of a conundrum as to where I can say the source of my morality really comes from. It can’t be strictly speaking from what is “good” out there. It has to spring from the subjective will of a law-giver, preferably God. But at the same time, God is not arbitrary and follows some kind of 'natural law.'That's a very odd thing to say. Morality has nothing to do with identifying what is worthy of choice? Or ethical standards? You must have a very odd view of morality.
Yep, so we both agree that you're better off believing that there's some magic about consciousness in order to keep your behavior in line. That's cool, we'll both be happier if you behave yourself, but it doesn't make the magic any more real.Ethical propositions would not have any moral force. They would just be rules of thumb or "good advice." My whole point is that morality surpasses "common sense" but is not necessarily in collision with it.
Sure, at least for Christianity where fear of going to hell and eternal punishement is the stick motivating good behavior.So let's say that what underlies all moral impetus is the fact of fear, pure and simple. It is out of cowardice that we follow the moral law. Now, is that enough to furnish the moral law - or give ethical weight to ethical propositions?
Proof of this claim?That is what I am arguing against. There is something else. There is an obliging force which accompanies moral propositions and differs wholly and completely from any 'common sense' directives.
The red you see may be a secondary property insofar as the external object is concerned, but it is a primary property of your brain.
I don't follow.Consciousness is a part of us. But it is not this, this, or that. Within whatever you are left with you'd find consciousness. And not somewhere else.
(^^^^ Sorry, I hope that is not too tricky to follow.)
In any case, I dont see how or why anyone would be interested in grounding ethics by hooking it to this actualization of potential.
What if my actualization of potential consists of becoming a punk rocker who snorts cocaine and abuses groupies?
Why should you side with flourishing as opposed to non-flourishing?
All that sounds very exciting but I just do not see what any of it has to do with morality in the sense (not that it is bereft of such content as benefiting) but that it does not have obliging force or demands of us that we live moral lives instead of just counsels us that we do so, us taking that counsel as it pleases us.
Yes, this is where I find myself in a bit of a conundrum as to where I can say the source of my morality really comes from. It cant be strictly speaking from what is good out there. It has to spring from the subjective will of a law-giver, preferably God. But at the same time, God is not arbitrary and follows some kind of 'natural law.'
Again, none of this has anything to do with the idea of "I wouldn't be happy if X were true therefore X must be true" not being a logical fallacy. All it means is that despite your claims, there are very good reason to act ethically even if there's no magical soul which survives death - namely the real world consequences of our actions.
Yep, so we both agree that you're better off believing that there's some magic about consciousness in order to keep your behavior in line. That's cool, we'll both be happier if you behave yourself, but it doesn't make the magic any more real.
Sure, at least for Christianity where fear of going to hell and eternal punishement is the stick motivating good behavior.
Proof of this claim?
What you are describing is a self-destructive lifestyle, not something that would be beneficial for human beings.
There are many ways I can answer such a question. I side with flourishing because it is in one's best-interests as a human being. Flourishing basically refers to the excellent and complete achievement of good values for a human being. So, I'm siding with success instead of failure.
Anyone can take anything casually -- even demands. But this is besides the point. The point is that if you misprioritize your values, you are acting in a way that isn't justified. You have no excuse. You are failing to do what you ought to do.
I fail to see why I should take the subjective will of any being as anything other than "counsel". What does it matter if God follows some kind of natural law? What does that add to the situation?
eudaimonia,
Mark
There is an overlap though, for instance we might experience primary properties such as extention in space.Actually if you read the wiki article you cited you will find that primary and secondary properties are similar to the dual aspects discussed up thread. the article concludes:
"Primary qualities are measurable aspects of physical reality. Secondary qualities are subjective."
Wouldn't you agree that this is similar to the dual aspects of physical properties and experiential properties?
That's exactly my point. Who cares if it is beneficial for humans?
What if we just are not gifted with those altruistic sentiments?
Why isn't a self-destructive lifestyle moral just because I hurt myself and potentially others? People get hurt all the time.
So why should success be correlated with morality?
You can say the same thing for any 'good' things human beings judge to be good that really aren't.
Since there is no substantive difference between your project and theirs
what is the "extra ingredient" in your argument that makes your ends, goals, actualizations any better than the extreme individualist's?
Why should I heed anything you say?
Are you an authoritative individual who has the right, the sanction, to enunciate such propositions?
Why should I take them as true? This is not obvious.
As far as I can tell, I have infinite excuses
Well, God following a form of natural law would not make his decrees arbitrary. They would be given a content you and I could agree upon.
However, when it comes to behaving as you "ought" to behave a subjective will is necessary because in all instances of law-giving there is a command present.
You say that I should follow the moral law. But I do not believe in your imperatives; they lack real authority. So I look to other sources of authority which are more authoritative; namely, God's.
You don't have to care, but you should. It's in your own best interests.
This is the only reason that can be given, and it is enough. It's like the following discussion between a mother and child:
Child: But why should I eat my broccoli?
Mother: Because it is good for you.
There is no deeper prescriptive ethical answer that can be given, or need be given. This is precisely the point of why one should do anything.
Of course, the mother can provide nutritional facts, and biological facts regarding nutrition, but these aren't prescriptive statements, but rather statements of fact. Having identified that broccoli is beneficial for human life, the statement "because it is good for you" is precisely the correct prescriptive answer for the child.
I never mentioned sentiments.
I can't take this kind of question seriously.
By success, I don't mean conventional cultural notions of success, such as success at a profession. I mean success at achieving one's good.
Why would I say any such thing? I'm talking about real goods, not fake ones.
You are confusing me for a moral subjectivist. There is a substantive difference between my "project" and moral subjectivism.
Mine is based on the reality of human nature, in particular our social nature.
Why should you heed anything someone else has to say? Please ponder that.
You are just being silly here. It doesn't matter who I am, and you are certainly free to disagree with my understanding of what is good for human beings. But this isn't the point. You don't have to believe that I have everything correct in order to see that some form of moral realism is true.
Of course not, since a complete explanation and defense would take an entire book. However, I do think that if you try, you may have an insight into the matter.
You apparently do!
What would we be agreeing on?
You sound like a noncognitivist. What you describe here sounds like some sort of prescriptivism. No wonder we aren't connecting in this discussion!
In my view, commands are entirely irrelevant to ethics. Why should I heed any command? What does a command add to the situation? A loud booming voice?
What makes God's authority more "authoritative"? Authoritative about what?
eudaimonia,
Mark
That is contradictory.
That is your own viewpoint.
My view differs.
I think there is a deeper prescriptive ethical answer on the basis that imperatives spring from the will of a law-bringer.
You can't get an ought out of an is, unfortunately.
You can't say there is a real prescriptive answer here. Only that it is common sense to eat the broccoli.
So it is not good or moral for me to grow up to become a gangster, even though that is exactly where my life tends, but it is good and moral for me to grow up to be a lawyer, or something. What discriminates the two projects is merely sentiment, nothing more.
Then you skirt the issue, unfortunately.
And here is verily the crux of the matter. How does the 'good' substantially differ from mere "cultural notions of success." Why is being healthy (which some cultures applaud) anymore absolute a measure of the 'true good' rather than a culture which practices self-mutilation? All you have to tell me is one is a 'fake' good and the other is a true one, but that is a nonsense answer and you know it!
On the other hand, if there is an actual imperative such that it springs from the will of a law-giver, then arbitrariness is curbed, because the law-giver does not assent to all kinds of actions but, as judge, gives his willing assent to only one sort of 'good' and thus actualizes it as good. Commands are then ratified as laws and not merely as good advice.
And there is nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see. I don't think we should abandon the facts of human nature or neglect them. But in order to give added force and meaning to claims, we need to pass beyond mere "is" and find an "ought." And an "ought" can only be found in the subjective will of an agent. Preferably someone omnscient, who knows and understands nature top-to-bottom. Someone in a position to really know the truth.
Because they have some degree of authoritativeness we should pay heed to on the very basis that people listen to them. The example of high school is one I always like to give. Why did we heed our teachers? Because they knew better than we did and on that basis had a degree of authority which trumped our own.
They also have the sanction to punish us, which is the proof of their own power.
Just so, when it comes to the highest possible authority, we should take heed because His knowledge trumps our own.
Excuse me? I shouldn't care about who you are? Well, what if you are someone not interested in the truth but to lead me astray?
Actually, I don't. But not for the reasons you think. It's because there is a higher authority over and above my head who gives me moral prescriptives because he knows what is best for me and all the rest of us, thus being in a position to make his commands laws, and not merely commands.
Not at all. Murder is wrong. Not because my emotions tell me, but because that statement is true.
Now, why it is true is the question. And the answer is, a subjective will causes it to be true.
Ultimately, it all boils down to authoritativeness. Why do you assent to the laws of the state? Is it merely because you are frightened of them? Or do you accept their authority and on that basis lead a legal, as opposed to illegal, existence?
The same way you listen to your teachers, your mentors and your peers.
You do the things they tell you
Not only that, but you have a certain sanction over YOURSELF. You will certain things, according to your own will. When you decide upon a certain thing, that becomes inviolable because you willed it. You might also say "because it's right!" But that's beside the point of your willing its specifically moral good.
It's good because it ought to be willed as moral good, ultimately. The will is paramount.
It is like a highlighter which enlightens certain words. The words don't change. But they are brought to moral power. They are made true or false on that basis.
No, what I meant by saying that you don't have to care is that nothing is forcing you to care. If you are resolutely apathetic, no ethical argument can force you to care. You, however, should care because it is in your best interests to care.
Actually, this example of the brocolli is what I was told by Douglas Rasmussen, a neo-Aristotlian philosopher, in a private email communication. You could say that it is his viewpoint, although I think it is a great insight.
Obviously, or we would share far more similar views.
That's utterly bizarre to me. But noted.
Yes, you can. Fortunately.
David Hume (the source of this mantra) only showed that one can't justify an ought from an is using purely deductive logic. He never showed that it couldn't be done in any way.
It's more than commonsense. It's good for you.
I don't intend to beat a dead horse, so I will leave this issue for now.
No, not sentiment. The nature of the values involved. Do those values nourish your life? Or are they fundamentally self-destructive?
Sentiment has nothing to do with it.
What issue? Saying that "people get hurt all the time" says nothing about the desirability of hurting others. There is no serious issue present.
You are the one speaking nonsense. What does it matter what a culture happens to practice? What matters is what there is such a thing as human well-being that transcends cultural opinion, just as there is such a thing as physical health that transcends cultural opinion. That is the insight you need to make.
Law-givers don't make anything good. Laws are at best good advice that happen to be backed by guns and threats. The guns and threats don't add anything. Without them, the laws (if they are good laws) are just as beneficial and therefore just as desirable and deserving of our support.
The truth about... what?
If your problem with ethical naturalism is the issue of knowledge alone, then you could actually be an ethical naturalist who tries to put God in the place of a human philosopher who relates what is nourishing for human life. God simply becomes an uber-philosopher. But is he advising human beings on that is good for them by nature, or is he simply SHOUTING REALLY LOUDLY?
Okay, so they "know more". That would be helpful, but it doesn't explain what a divine ethicist knows that should matter to us as human beings.
Power never proves anything about ethics, or else Big Brother really would have more moral authority than Winston Smith.
Knowledge of what?
Then don't talk with me. The only reason I'm talking with you is because I know that I'm interested in the truth, and I believe that you are (until proven otherwise), and so it is worthwhile to have a philosophical discussion. Even though your ideas are bizarre to me, I accept that as normal in philosophical discussion, and so I have no reason to doubt your sincerity.
Ask yourself this: Does it matter who I am if I were to tell you that the Earth is round instead of flat like a pancake? What does it matter who I am? What matters is that there are reasons to think that the Earth is round instead of flat like a pancake.
What if I were a flat-earther who tried to lead you astray by trying to convince you that the Earth was round? Would that make me wrong? The reasons are what matters, not the person.
Hold on! What does that bolded part mean? what is best for me and all the rest of us And after you criticized my views about ethical prescription being ultimately based on what is in people's best interests?
Same with me. I am a cognitivist, like you, I suppose.
Causes it to be true? Why does truth need to be "caused"? Why isn't it simply true?
Why? Because of my ethical naturalism, and only because I have lived in reasonably free nations that are still based to some extent on natural rights that stem from my ethical views.
If I were to live in Big Brother's totalitarian nation, I would either assent to laws of the State because I was frightened of Big Brother, or I would be brave (or foolish) like Winston Smith and seek to undermine the State.
Authoritativeness means nothing here. I do not see myself as a passive victim of authority.
Do I listen to them? No, I consider what they have to say, but I want to know for myself why I should independently come to the same conclusions as they, and why it is that those conclusions should influence my actions in life. I don't assume that they have any authority. Only my own judgment has authority, and only to the extent to which my judgment involves clear reasoning about the facts of reality. The ultimate ethical authority, if authority is the right word, is my nature as a human being.
LOL! No, I use my own judgment about what to do or not do.
I have no idea what you are talking about. What does it mean to say that something willed becomes "inviolable"? It is very violable, even by myself. For instance, I could change my mind and do something else, even to undo the effects of what I had done in some fashion. And will does not justify my actions -- only a moral good can do so.
As far as I can tell, will is only a means, not an end or a justification. Are you at all influenced by Nietzsche's views on will, incidentally?
Made true or false? By an act of will? I can't make any sense of this argument.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Power is an essential ingredient. But it would be a mistake to assume that just anyone with power has the right to ground the moral law. That is not what I am saying, and I will get to why briefly.
Oh, sure. There might be "good reasons" to do one thing over another. But that's simply not what I think of when I think of morality. What about if a psychopath dispenses with "common sense" reasons because they don't suit him? What would you say to him to bring him back "to reality." Nothing, I suppose. There's nothing you can say to psychopaths to change them. Well, how about just a hardened criminal? He wants to go back to prison so he commits a petty crime. How do you dissuade? And, if you can't dissuade, what right do you have to, what sanction in particular, that he should be moral?
The "magic" of consciousness, would only be one reason, stemming from one's practical identity, as to how he should act. Another would be various sanctions placed on morality such that it has the force that it does, and not just because it gives us good advice we may take or deny at our leisure.
Those would be a type of sanction. But there are other types of sanctions which don't have anything to do with punishment but rather the degree of authoritativeness they spring from.
This is hard to explain, but I feel confident that I've made a start.
Please explain "extention (sic) in space".There is an overlap though, for instance we might experience primary properties such as extention in space.
Also experiential properties are physical properties, assuming that the mind is physical.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?