When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

Not at all. You are not the arbiter of harm. You don't get to decide if something is harmful or not for every person and every culture. I'm not talking about a single example. I'm talking about the premise. Who determines harm?

We determine it. Let me know if you have any difficulty and I'll do my best to help you out.

 

[o_mlly]

Two things before I continue. Something that is natural is not necessarily what we would describe as good. And something that is universally agreed upon is not necessarily good. So your claim above obviously fails on both counts.

Au contraire mon frere:

nat·u·ral​

[ˈnaCHər(ə)l, ˈnaCHr(ə)l]

ADJECTIVE​

1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind​

u·ni·ver·sal​

[ˌyo͞onəˈvərs(ə)l]

ADJECTIVE​

1. of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all case​

ob·jec·tive​

[əbˈjektiv]

ADJECTIVE​

1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Contrasted with subjective​

If moral rules are both "natural" and "universal" then those moral rules are objective.​

​

The point that has been made (and I quoted part of my post 2 to you earlier - which has not received a response) that some things can be determined to be harmful and some not. Objectively so. And from that we can assume moral positions. It's not the case that we declared something to be morally wrong and then discover that society didn't work if people kept on doing it. What worked was good. What didn't was bad. And we personally decided that these things could then be described as morally good and bad.

Lying, for example, can lead to a lack of trust. Which can harm the relationship between two people. So there follows from that relatively obvious statement that we can assume that lying is generally bad. So we determine lying to be morally wrong. In the first instance. Without any qualifications. But there isn't a moral position that can be determined without context. You can lie to gain a personal benefit or you can lie to save a life. So 'lying is wrong' is not an objective fact. It isn't an objective moral position.

It's the same with harm. Causing harm is an objective fact. There's no denying it, although some are desperate enough to avoid this obvious statement by suggesting that some people, culturally, may not consider it to be so. Which is nonsensical. Harm has definitely been done. We just have to determine whether it is justified. If we didn't have to do that then causing harm would be objectively wrong. So it rather obviously isn't.

Let's start with: "some things can be determined to be harmful and some not." The passive voice betrays the inherent weakness of the claim. Who determines what acts cause harm?

Next: "What worked was good." Ghengis Kahn's raping and pillaging worked quite well for the Mongols.

Next: "lying is generally bad." Why is lying always morally repugnant? Lying is wrong because we have moral right to acquire knowledge in order to do good. We do not have a right to knowledge that enables us to do evil. "She's not here", is perfectly true when the unexpressed but true prepositional phrase, " ... for you to murder" is understood.

 

[Bradskii]

Au contraire mon frere:
If moral rules are both "natural" and "universal" then those moral rules are objective.

I haven't said that moral rules are universal or objective. You are arguing against something I didn't say. And in French as well..

I said that not everything that is natural is good. I'm sure you can think of a few things that would apply. And if everyone agrees on something doesn't make them right. So obviously doesn't necessarily make it good either.

Let's start with: "some things can be determined to be harmful and some not." The passive voice betrays the inherent weakness of the claim. Who determines what acts cause harm?

We do. It shouldn't be hard. The difficult thing is deciding if the harm is justified. And I explained that in some detail earlier so I don't know why you're asking the same question as was asked earlier.

Next: "What worked was good." Ghengis Kahn's raping and pillaging worked quite well for the Mongols.

Again, I explained this. It was in reference to our evolutionary past. Not what someone might have done in the 13th century. And I explained that we are not governed by our genetic make up. It prompts us in certain directions, but there's a mixture of what we could say is nature and nurture. And we tend to frown on rape and pillage these days.

Next: "lying is generally bad." Why is lying always morally repugnant? Lying is wrong because we have moral right to acquire knowledge in order you are asking.to do good. We do not have a right to knowledge that enables us to do evil. "She's not here", is perfectly true when the unexpressed but true prepositional phrase, " ... for you to murder" is understood.

Sure. You can cross your fingers or whisper part of the sentence or leave it hanging unsaid if you like. If you then want to call saying 'she's not here' as 'not lying' when she's in the basement then that's your call. A somewhat desperate call in my opinion, but it's yours to make.

 

[o_mlly]

I haven't said that moral rules are universal or objective.

????

I believe they [moral assumptions] are natural because they have evolved naturally. And they are universal because we are all the same species.​

... that some things can be determined to be harmful and some not. Objectively so.

No instructive moral content in the above claim and, absent any specific always and everywhere harmful acts, contains an internal contradiction. If one person can determine an act is harmful and another not, then you can throw objectivity out the window.

And we tend to frown on rape and pillage these days.

Do we not frown on rape and pillage in the 13th century these days? So much for nurture. Better to stick with nature properly understood to establish a secular morality.

 

[rjs330]

We determine it. Let me know if you have any difficulty and I'll do my best to help you out.

Who's we?

 

[Bradskii]

No instructive moral content in the above claim and, absent any specific always and everywhere harmful acts, contains an internal contradiction.

I said moral assumptions. Not moral rules. If they were rules (as in 'Thou shalt not...') then they'd be objective. They are not objective because we personally have to decide if they are justified.

If one person can determine an act is harmful and another not, then you can throw objectivity out the window.

No. There shouldn't be any problem in determining if harm has been caused. What throws objectivity out of the window is that we individually need to determine if the harm is justified.

Do we not frown on rape and pillage in the 13th century these days? So much for nurture. Better to stick with nature properly understood to establish a secular morality.

Yes, we frown on rape and pillage. That's an example of nurture overriding nature. It happens all the time. But you're right in that we should look to nature in the first instance to understand the basis for what we do and why we do it. As we are not governed by our genetic make up (within certain limits) then we can choose whether certain actions are good or bad. And again, this was explained just a couple of posts back.

Why are you asking questions that have already been answered? If you didn't like the answer the first time then asking the question again is not going to change that.

 

[Bradskii]

Who's we?

That would be you and me and anyone else who has some interest in the matter.

What an odd question...

 

[o_mlly]

I said moral assumptions. Not moral rules.

It seems your claims simply play with the meaning of words.

Moral systems establish rules that categorize acts as "good" or "bad". Well, you say, let's change "good" and "bad" to "harmful" or "not harmful". And, if that is not ambiguous enough, let's, you say, be even more ambiguous and add "harmful" only if judged so by one's own determination.

Imagine the increase in the number of traffic accidents if "rules of road" were changed to merely "advisory assumptions"! We advise you not to rape that woman, unless, of course, you think that is not harmful to her.

So, I conclude that you have nothing to offer to this thread.

 

[Bradskii]

It seems your claims simply play with the meaning of words.

Moral systems establish rules that categorize acts as "good" or "bad". Well, you say, let's change "good" and "bad" to "harmful" or "not harmful". And, if that is not ambiguous enough, let's, you say, be even more ambiguous and add "harmful" only if judged so by one's own determination.

Are you not reading my posts? You just made all that up.

I haven't said that we change bad to harmful. Obviously because there are many harmful things that are good. I said we first determine if harm has been done. Because, and this bit is obvious as well but I'd better spell it out so you don't get confused, if no harm is done then there's nothing further to discuss.

If harm has been determined, then (and I've explained this on numerous occassions as well) we determine if it's justified. Now you are free to nominate who is to determine that. Me? I say it's you. And me. And anyone else who has an interest in the matter. We determine it.

Are we always going to agree? Well, mostly we do. Unless you are involved and then a lot of time has to be wasted explaining all of this to you over again.

Now I know you don't agree with that. But you be sure to tell me if there's anything there that you still don't understand. And in the meantime, please stop twisting what I have said.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you not reading my posts?

Well, not all of them ... there are about 250 of them.

Let's test your ideas of secular morality in the concrete where two worlds do in fact collide. Imagine identical twins, one an atheist and the other a Christian, are in a sinking lifeboat built for one and the sharks are circling. Which one has a moral compass that is more likely to permit tossing the other overboard? Take your time.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, not all of them ...

It's been explained in great detail in a number of posts since you joined in.

Let's test your ideas of secular morality in the concrete where two worlds do in fact collide. Imagine identical twins, one an atheist and the other a Christian, are in a sinking lifeboat built for one and the sharks are circling. Which one has a moral compass that is more likely to permit tossing the other overboard? Take your time.

What another weird question. I guess you want to bring evolution into it and say 'Hey, wouldn't your 'evolutionary morality' (and if you actually said it you'd definitely do the air quotes) dictate that it would be better to save one's genes to pass on to future generations?'

Well...no, in the first instance because as I have repeatedly said (in posts that you must have read), our genetic makeup doesn't dictate what we do. There are considerations other than our personal tendencies to survive. I'm sure I don't have to list them. And even if you were correct - which you are not, then the evolutionary process wouldn't make any determination as to which brother was shark bait because those selfish genes are identical in each of them.

The atheist would be more likely to understand that (If we use your knowledge of evolution as the example of the Christian), so he would realise that from an evolutionary perspective, it wouldn't matter. So he'd sacrifice himself out of sibling love. And the genes survive.

I said you didn't understand it...

 

[Kylie]

It's evident that you've convinced yourself that your beliefs are true, so there really isn't anything to discuss here

I'm not the one who presented their beliefs as though they were the basis of the discussion.

And I base my beliefs on the evidence. If you can present to me evidence that what I have based my beliefs on is incorrect, I will change my beliefs. Can you say the same thing?

 

[Kylie]

Everyone has some kind of presuppositions or beliefs about the world as a given.

True. But I'm willing to re-evaluate my beliefs based on evidence. How about you?

 

[rjs330]

That would be you and me and anyone else who has some interest in the matter.

What an odd question...

What if we disagree? Who gets to determine then what harm is?

 

[rjs330]

If harm has been determined, then (and I've explained this on numerous occassions as well) we determine if it's justified. Now you are free to nominate who is to determine that. Me? I say it's you. And me. And anyone else who has an interest in the matter. We determine it.

What if we are wrong? After all at one point the "we" of the day thought slavery and human sacrifice was just fine. The "we" also decided that cannibalism was just fine. Who are you to say it's harmful? Maybe the culture thinks it's not. Who are you to say it is?

 

[Bradskii]

What if we disagree? Who gets to determine then what harm is?

The person who was harmed. Assuming that she wasn't a human sacrifice. Then I guess we ask her family.

 

[Bradskii]

What if we are wrong? After all at one point the "we" of the day thought slavery and human sacrifice was just fine. The "we" also decided that cannibalism was just fine. Who are you to say it's harmful? Maybe the culture thinks it's not. Who are you to say it is?

Harm was obviously done. If you restrict someone's freedom then that's harmful. If you sacrifice someone then...let me think...yeah, that's harmful as well. If you can't see that, then I'm not sure it's worth you continuing the discussion.

But go with cannibalism. That's an interesting one. Make an argument with that. Let's see how it goes. Then I'll give you another tricky one.

 

[FireDragon76]

True. But I'm willing to re-evaluate my beliefs based on evidence. How about you?

Of course. I just don't see evidence that materialistic naturalism is the best account of reality.

 

[partinobodycular]

Of course. I just don't see evidence that materialistic naturalism is the best account of reality.

That may be, but jumping right to... God did it... doesn't seem like the best option either.

 

[o_mlly]

... please stop twisting what I have said.

That's rich. Fell down laughing when I read it!