Where does morality come from?

[VirOptimus]

By attacking my credibility, claiming I am ignorant.

The post was about your signature, not you.

 

[Moral Orel]

So you have run out of evidence or constructive things to say so your now attacking me personally. Your entire approach to arguing is just wrong. The right thing to do would have been to ask a person first what they mean by what they have quoted rather than assuming things. You don't know me or the reasoning behind why I posted that.

He never had any evidence. He never had anything of substance at all to add. He's just trolling, better to not feed the trolls.

 

[Kylie]

Yes it does. You are thinking like a materialist/physicalist when it comes to morality and philosophical evidence. Evidence for morality is not the same as scientific evidence where an objective can be found and tested. Morality is determined by the way we act/react and what we believe is moral truth. That is the only way we can produce evidence for morality.

As mentioned with epistemic truths, the way that you or any person believes that people ought to act honestly in a debate, for example, we ought not to lie, or use logical fallacies. Or we ought not to misrepresent the other person's argument which you have pointed out on a number of occasions. By doing these people are accepting and believing in epistemic truths that people should be honest in debates. There are a number of other epistemic values we all believe and use as well.

Epistemic truths are intertwined with moral truths such as honesty and they cannot be separated. You cannot, on the one hand, believe and act like there are epistemic truths and then claim that epistemic and morals are relative and subjective because you are already assuming, believing, and acting like they are truths we all should adhere to.

They are not just your opinion because you are using them in an interaction where you expect others or the group to also abide by like they are the only truths. Otherwise, I could just say why should I follow these truths and not misrepresent your argument, or lie and make logical fallacies. As mentioned by you protesting when I do misrepresent your argument, make fallacies, or lie you are showing that you believe and live those epistemic and moral truths. This is the lived experience that forms the evidence for moral and epistemic truths.

The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism
if moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts also do not exist. But epistemic facts (facts that concern reasons for belief), it is argued, do exist. So, moral facts also exist. And if moral facts exist, then moral realism is true. This argument provides not simply a defense of a robust realist view of ethics, but a positive argument for this position. In so doing, it engages with sophisticated skeptical positions in epistemology, such as error theories, expressivist views, and reductionist views of epistemic reasons. These positions, it is claimed, come at a high theoretical cost. It follows that realism about both epistemic and moral facts is a position that we should find highly attractive.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285966919_The_Normative_Web_An_Argument_for_Moral_Realism
https://philpapers.org/rec/[bless a...s and do not curse][bless and do not curse]NW

I've lost count of how often I've told you that people can act like things are one way while understanding that they are in fact a different way. Remember how I said about how we act as though the sun goes around the earth, even though we know the opposite is true?

 

[stevevw]

I've lost count of how often I've told you that people can act like things are one way while understanding that they are in fact a different way. Remember how I said about how we act as though the sun goes around the earth, even though we know the opposite is true?

And I pointed out that this is the wrong sort of analogy for morality. The Sun is a physical object whereas morals are not. We cannot use the same measure for morals.

You cannot measure 'honesty' in any physical way like the sun. The only way we can determine if honesty is real is in how people believe and act like it is real. There is no other way, unlike the sun where we can use equipment to measure how the earth goes around the sun. The fact that people think the sun may go around the earth is just an illusion and it doesn't matter as they can still function. There is no truth value to it we are dependent on.

But honesty cannot be regarded as an illusion because its a vital part of our norms that allows us to function. No one could even engage in debate and it would mean no values to guide debates and people would be making up stuff and no one could have any way of determining what is what. There would be no trust, no confidence in anything.

But the fact that we do trust and believe that honesty is a real value we can use to guide our debates shows that honesty is a real value we depend on and believe is real. If that is the case then honesty as far as epistemic values are concerned is closely tied to the moral value of honesty. So if we believe that honesty is real then it follows that we believe it is real morally.

It can be summed up simply like this. Do you believe that I should be honest in our debates? I should not misrepresent what you say or use fallacies to support what I say. If so then you show that you value honesty and believe its a real value. If not then why do you protest and demand that I be honest or point out when I am not being honest. You cannot claim subject and relative positions at the same time of insisting truth values in debates.

 

[VirOptimus]

And I pointed out that this is the wrong sort of analogy for morality. The Sun is a physical object whereas morals are not. We cannot use the same measure for morals.

You cannot measure 'honesty' in any physical way like the sun. The only way we can determine if honesty is real is in how people believe and act like it is real. There is no other way, unlike the sun where we can use equipment to measure how the earth goes around the sun. The fact that people think the sun may go around the earth is just an illusion and it doesn't matter as they can still function. There is no truth value to it we are dependent on.

But honesty cannot be regarded as an illusion because its a vital part of our norms that allows us to function. No one could even engage in debate and it would mean no values to guide debates and people would be making up stuff and no one could have any way of determining what is what. There would be no trust, no confidence in anything.

But the fact that we do trust and believe that honesty is a real value we can use to guide our debates shows that honesty is a real value we depend on and believe is real. If that is the case then honesty as far as epistemic values are concerned is closely tied to the moral value of honesty. So if we believe that honesty is real then it follows that we believe it is real morally.

It can be summed up simply like this. Do you believe that I should be honest in our debates? I should not misrepresent what you say or use fallacies to support what I say. If so then you show that you value honesty and believe its a real value. If not then why do you protest and demand that I be honest or point out when I am not being honest. You cannot claim subject and relative positions at the same time of insisting truth values in debates.

By this standard all religions would be "proven" as many act as they are true.

 

[stevevw]

By this standard all religions would be "proven" as many act as they are true.

There is more to it than this. It is about justified beliefs (proper basic beliefs) that are directly connected to what it is that a person perceives and believes and is not reliant on other beliefs to prop it up which religious belief would be. Proper basic beliefs are inferred from other more foundational beliefs but are a direct result of our experience.

That is why something like 'honesty' can be justified as it is regarded as a social norm as we use it in our daily interactions to help guide us otherwise we could not function. So epistemic values are very practical as we need them to interact in any reasonable and coherent way. I posted a link to how justified beliefs work earlier.

 

[the iconoclast]

Why should they be?

Hey hey Saint

Because it makes a difference cherub. The gospels may be either;

A. An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment - fiction. (.eg something that is invented)

B. An account of past events in someone's life or in the development of something - non fiction (.e.g. factual rather than fictional.)

An eye witness has to have been present to tell someone what happened. Testimony.

1. If the Gospels were not eye witnessed then what were they?

The authors make no claim that they were eyewitness and Luke is quite explicit that he was not.

My dear saint, Luke was concerned enough to base his Gospel on the earliest and best eyewitnesses who went back all the way to the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

The Gosepls of Matthew, Mark, and the Gospel of Luke have a lot of passages in common, so yes they are called the synoptic Gospels (synoptic means viewed together).

The writers of the Four Gospels are also known as evangelists.

Luke 1:1
1 Since many have undertaken to arrange in proper order an account of the events that have been fulfilled among us,

2 just as from the beginning the eyewitnesses and those becoming ministers of the Word handed down to us,

3 so also it seemed good to me, accurately following and investigating everything from the first, to write to you in order

It means those who are first hand observers. It seems that the author interviewed those people who eye witnessed the events and wrote down a narrative based on those eye witnesses. These people gave their testimony.

Testimony is a huge thing to us pentecostals and from what I can gather is a huge thing in Christainity.

We are to witness to others and spread the Good News. Luke as far as I'm concerned is the Good News based on eye witnessed accounts because the sayings of Jesus were in demand.

2. What you think my dear brother

It is beginning to seem as if you are deliberately misunderstanding me.

I disagree but since you feel the need to tell me something of my person, I think it's only fair to return the favour.

It is beginning to seem as if you have no ammo to back up any claims you make. You have a lack of depth and your quality of argument is wanting.

Now we both know What the others feels let's continue.

What I am trying to convey to you is this:

1. If Genesis is merely an historical narrative then it is unworthy of God's authorship.

3. Why is that so?

Lets say it is a historical narrative, why does that make it unworthy of God's Authorship?

Stop being shy my dear, what have you got?!?!

2. If it is authored by God then it need not be an historical narrative in order to be true and authoritative.

4. Why is that so? Explain it to me in detail, just in case I try to deliberately misunderstand you.

You know Genesis means origin right - you who is supposedly literate.

What use is an origin story if its not based on fact.

Do you give symbolic origin stories when someone's asks you about the birth of your children or how you got married?

The first humans.

So Adam and Eve represents the first Humans.

5. How can you confirm this?


Ps cherub you are not answering all the available questions. Failure to answer these questions will seem suspect.

I will repeat what you decided to ignore.

6. Common ancestry is a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

The conclusion is reasoned not by proof but on the basis of some evidence.

What evidence?

I'm challenging you to answer this one cherub and not run away on me like the last time with @SPF.

7. What is trump doing to you?
How is it doing it?

Cheers My dear but I'm starting to become disappointed.

 

[VirOptimus]

There is more to it than this. It is about justified beliefs (proper basic beliefs) that are directly connected to what it is that a person perceives and believes and is not reliant on other beliefs to prop it up which religious belief would be. Proper basic beliefs are inferred from other more foundational beliefs but are a direct result of our experience.

That is why something like 'honesty' can be justified as it is regarded as a social norm as we use it in our daily interactions to help guide us otherwise we could not function. So epistemic values are very practical as we need them to interact in any reasonable and coherent way. I posted a link to how justified beliefs work earlier.

No, its exactly the same.

 

[Speedwell]

Hey hey Saint

Because it makes a difference cherub. The gospels may be either;

A. An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment - fiction. (.eg something that is invented)

B. An account of past events in someone's life or in the development of something - non fiction (.e.g. factual rather than fictional.)

An eye witness has to have been present to tell someone what happened. Testimony.

1. If the Gospels were not eye witnessed then what were they?



My dear saint, Luke was concerned enough to base his Gospel on the earliest and best eyewitnesses who went back all the way to the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

The Gosepls of Matthew, Mark, and the Gospel of Luke have a lot of passages in common, so yes they are called the synoptic Gospels (synoptic means viewed together).

The writers of the Four Gospels are also known as evangelists.

Luke 1:1
1 Since many have undertaken to arrange in proper order an account of the events that have been fulfilled among us,

2 just as from the beginning the eyewitnesses and those becoming ministers of the Word handed down to us,

3 so also it seemed good to me, accurately following and investigating everything from the first, to write to you in order

It means those who are first hand observers. It seems that the author interviewed those people who eye witnessed the events and wrote down a narrative based on those eye witnesses. These people gave their testimony.

Testimony is a huge thing to us pentecostals and from what I can gather is a huge thing in Christainity.

We are to witness to others and spread the Good News. Luke as far as I'm concerned is the Good News based on eye witnessed accounts because the sayings of Jesus were in demand.

2. What you think my dear brother



I disagree but since you feel the need to tell me something of my person, I think it's only fair to return the favour.

It is beginning to seem as if you have no ammo to back up any claims you make. You have a lack of depth and your quality of argument is wanting.

Now we both know What the others feels let's continue.




3. Why is that so?

Lets say it is a historical narrative, why does that make it unworthy of God's Authorship?

Stop being shy my dear, what have you got?!?!



4. Why is that so? Explain it to me in detail, just in case I try to deliberately misunderstand you.

You know Genesis means origin right - you who is supposedly literate.

What use is an origin story if its not based on fact.

Do you give symbolic origin stories when someone's asks you about the birth of your children or how you got married?




So Adam and Eve represents the first Humans.

5. How can you confirm this?


Ps cherub you are not answering all the available questions. Failure to answer these questions will seem suspect.

I will repeat what you decided to ignore.

6. Common ancestry is a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

The conclusion is reasoned not by proof but on the basis of some evidence.

What evidence?

I'm challenging you to answer this one cherub and not run away on me like the last time with @SPF.

7. What is trump doing to you?
How is it doing it?

Cheers My dear but I'm starting to become disappointed.

Too many false dichotomies, pretended misunderstandings and other dishonest rhetoric. I'm done with you.

 

[stevevw]

No, its exactly the same.

Platinga made this argument about a properly basic belief in God. But unlike this belief, if I am engaging in an argument with someone we both can agree as we do with social norms that certain values like honesty are true to appeal to and guide us thus making them real and giving them support.

I cannot see how I can really do that with a belief in God. As far as I understand a properly basic belief will stand despite any defeaters. So we are justified to believe in something unless and until a defeater comes along to show that this is not a justified belief (properly basic). I can properly believe that I have a head and it would be impossible to come up with a defeater for that belief.

But as with God, I think it would take a lot of knocking down defeaters to establish it as properly basic IE if God exists why does he hide from us. Why doesn't He give us more direct evidence for belief? Then there is the problem of consciousness (a disembodied mind) that is connected to a belief in God. We haven't even touched on answering this. Then there is the problem of evil. Why should we believe in a God that allows evil?

I am not completely averse with Plantinga's rationale for these and though I could explain some of these rationally I am not as confident in addressing these and the many other defeaters that could be made to justify a belief in God as I can with something like honesty in a debate.

 

[VirOptimus]

Platinga made this argument about a properly basic belief in God. But unlike this belief, if I am engaging in an argument with someone we both can agree as we do with social norms that certain values like honesty are true to appeal to and guide us thus making them real and giving them support.

I cannot see how I can really do that with a belief in God. As far as I understand a properly basic belief will stand despite any defeaters. So we are justified to believe in something unless and until a defeater comes along to show that this is not a justified belief (properly basic). I can properly believe that I have a head and it would be impossible to come up with a defeater for that belief.

But as with God, I think it would take a lot of knocking down defeaters to establish it as properly basic IE if God exists why does he hide from us. Why doesn't He give us more direct evidence for belief? Then there is the problem of consciousness (a disembodied mind) that is connected to a belief in God. We haven't even touched on answering this. Then there is the problem of evil. Why should we believe in a God that allows evil?

I am not completely averse with Plantinga's rationale for these and though I could explain some of these rationally I am not as confident in address these and the many other defeaters that could be made to justify a belief in God as I can with something like honesty in a debate.

As an aside; honesty is just something you as an moral agent put as value on an act. It is wholly a "belief" on the agent, not someting external.

But your argument is as people act that something is real then it is real, that is a faulty argument as I have shown you. It doesnt matter if its regarding religion or morals.

 

[the iconoclast]

Too many false dichotomies, pretended misunderstandings and other dishonest rhetoric. I'm done with you.

Hey hey Saint

Wow. You gave up again!!!!

My dear you really have nothing to back up your claims

 

[stevevw]

As an aside; honesty is just something you as an moral agent put as value on an act. It is wholly a "belief" on the agent, not something external.

We don't know whether values like honesty are purely internal. It can still have an external aspect to it because it is something that two or more people can appeal to as real and true. True beyond them as values like honesty will stand regardless of a person's personal views as an independent law.

The person may not wish to believe in honesty and insist it doesn't matter or that it is unreal. But they are still held, to the reality of honesty in that they have to be honest as otherwise, nothing they say would be taken seriously or be trusted. So in that sense, it is 'real' and independent of the person whether they choose to believe in honesty of not.

But your argument is as people act that something is real then it is real, that is a faulty argument as I have shown you. It doesn't matter if its regarding religion or morals.

That is how a proper belief works but it has to stand defeaters. A person may truly believe that a stick that is placed half in the water is bent. But this is just an illusion caused by refraction. It cannot stand up to the defeater that would show this is just an illusion.

So just because someone believes something doesn't mean it is real. A properly basic belief is more than just acting like something is real. As mentioned it has to withstand defeaters based on rationality. Sometimes people may come up with a defeater and then a defeater can defeat that defeater and sometimes it may take a number of defeaters until it can be established that it is a proper belief that is justified and therefore making it real.

Like I said a simple example is we can be justified to believe that we have a 'head'. No one can come up with a defeater that we have not got a 'head' or our head is unreal. Anyone who claimed our head was not real would be regarded as delusional or irrational. Therefore if a belief rationally stands up we can be confident and justified it is a proper belief until a defeater comes along and shows it is not. That is the only way we can show that what we believe is justified and real.

 

[VirOptimus]

We don't know whether values like honesty are purely internal. It can still have an external aspect to it because it is something that two or more people can appeal to as real and true. True beyond them as values like honesty will stand regardless of a person's personal views as an independent law.

The person may not wish to believe in honesty and insist it doesn't matter or that it is unreal. But they are still held, to the reality of honesty in that they have to be honest as otherwise, nothing they say would be taken seriously or be trusted. So in that sense, it is 'real' and independent of the person whether they choose to believe in honesty of not.

That is how a proper belief works but it has to stand defeaters. A person may truly believe that a stick that is placed half in the water is bent. But this is just an illusion caused by refraction. It cannot stand up to the defeater that would show this is just an illusion.

So just because someone believes something doesn't mean it is real. A properly basic belief is more than just acting like something is real. As mentioned it has to withstand defeaters based on rationality. Sometimes people may come up with a defeater and then a defeater can defeat that defeater and sometimes it may take a number of defeaters until it can be established that it is a proper belief that is justified and therefore making it real.

Like I said a simple example is we can be justified to believe that we have a 'head'. No one can come up with a defeater that we have not got a 'head' or our head is unreal. Anyone who claimed our head was not real would be regarded as delusional or irrational. Therefore if a belief rationally stands up we can be confident and justified it is a proper belief until a defeater comes along and shows it is not. That is the only way we can show that what we believe is justified and real.

Now you are just rambling.

 

[Kylie]

And I pointed out that this is the wrong sort of analogy for morality. The Sun is a physical object whereas morals are not. We cannot use the same measure for morals.

You haven't explained why morality should be different for some reason. There is no reason why the "We can act like X is one particular way, even if we know that it is actually a different way, since it is easier for us to think of X in the first way," shouldn't apply to morality as well.

You cannot measure 'honesty' in any physical way like the sun. The only way we can determine if honesty is real is in how people believe and act like it is real. There is no other way, unlike the sun where we can use equipment to measure how the earth goes around the sun. The fact that people think the sun may go around the earth is just an illusion and it doesn't matter as they can still function. There is no truth value to it we are dependent on.

But honesty cannot be regarded as an illusion because its a vital part of our norms that allows us to function. No one could even engage in debate and it would mean no values to guide debates and people would be making up stuff and no one could have any way of determining what is what. There would be no trust, no confidence in anything.

But the fact that we do trust and believe that honesty is a real value we can use to guide our debates shows that honesty is a real value we depend on and believe is real. If that is the case then honesty as far as epistemic values are concerned is closely tied to the moral value of honesty. So if we believe that honesty is real then it follows that we believe it is real morally.

It can be summed up simply like this. Do you believe that I should be honest in our debates? I should not misrepresent what you say or use fallacies to support what I say. If so then you show that you value honesty and believe its a real value. If not then why do you protest and demand that I be honest or point out when I am not being honest. You cannot claim subject and relative positions at the same time of insisting truth values in debates.

Irrelevant. The fact that morality and the sun are of different natures doesn't mean we can't think of them as behaving one way while actually they are a different way.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey @VirOptimus

I see you gave brother @Speedwell post - where he gave up on me - a winner of thread award.

I know how important upvotes are so I gave it a winner of the thread award too.

How about u and I have a debate?

 

[VirOptimus]

Hey @VirOptimus

I see you gave brother @Speedwell post - where he gave up on me - a winner of thread award.

I know how important upvotes are so I gave it a winner of the thread award too.

How about u and I have a debate?

No.

 

[stevevw]

Now you are just rambling.

How is it rambling. What I have explained is exactly how a properly basic belief is made. So you are accusing the experts of rambling. I would rather trust them then your baseless assertions.

 

[stevevw]

You haven't explained why morality should be different for some reason.

What do you mean different from some reason.

There is no reason why the "We can act like X is one particular way, even if we know that it is actually a different way, since it is easier for us to think of X in the first way," shouldn't apply to morality as well.

You will have to clarify this as I don't get what you are saying. If acting like X is giving value to honesty in a debate. Then you have acted like honesty is a real value whether you want to claim you don't believe its a value of not. Your action of making honesty an important part of a debate is what makes honesty real.

You can try and pretend that honesty is not a real value and that you don't have to act honestly in a debate but see how far you get. You will never be able to function in any debate. You or I could make up anything and presented. You could no longer say that I am not being honest because you have abandoned honesty as a value.

But the reality is as we see on this forum and thread is that everyone expects honesty. They live like honesty is a real value that has to be conformed to epistemically. It's in the way people think and cannot be denied.

Irrelevant. The fact that morality and the sun are of different natures doesn't mean we can't think of them as behaving one way while actually they are a different way.

You do not understand how a proper belief works and can be justified. As I said a properly basic belief needs to stand up to defeaters. The sun going around the earth is an illusion like the stick that is half placed in water and looks bent. It can be defeated easily by showing that it is actually the earth going around the sun through reasoning. So it doesn't stand up to a simple defeater to be justified as a proper belief.

But honesty can withstand any defeaters as a real value within a debate between two people and I have shown how this is the case. You would be irrational to insist the sun goes around the earth if you believe that and you would also be irrational to insist that honesty is not a real value we use within a debate.

So if you can you give me some support for this assertion about people rationally believing the sun goes around the earth then you can defeat this defeater that shows the earth actually goes around the sun. Rather than keep insisting this I will let you support your claim. Likewise, if you can provide a defeater that honesty is not a real value we use in our interactions like debates where an honest measure is required then go ahead.

 

[VirOptimus]

How is it rambling. What I have explained is exactly how a properly basic belief is made. So you are accusing the experts of rambling. I would rather trust them then your baseless assertions.

No, its not.

Are you even familiar with metaphysics?