Where is the hope in atheism?

[bhsmte]

That you had been trespassed against? Or that you might be reluctant to make your feelings known?

What??????????????

Point to the specific post, where you gathered this. Also, point to the post where you claim; I credit the people in the world, as being reasonable and egalitarian.

 

[bhsmte]

Just for the record, so was Hitler. So was the Rwanda Genocide. Democracy merely preferences what the majority want; or what a sizeable portion want that can then jockey themselves into power, as Hitler did. It is no safeguard against evil. Cultural factors that support virtue must be in league with it, for a democracy of devils would still be hell.

I would agree.

Trump was a byproduct of enough people being fed up with establishment politicians in general, both on the republican and democratic side.

I didn't vote for either candidate for president, but my hope is, this whole result, is a lesson to both parties.

 

[Trimeresurus]

Just for the record, so was Hitler. So was the Rwanda Genocide. Democracy merely preferences what the majority want; or what a sizeable portion want that can then jockey themselves into power, as Hitler did. It is no safeguard against evil. Cultural factors that support virtue must be in league with it, for a democracy of devils would still be hell.

Humans are morons.
Humans who follow other humans are dangerous morons.
This is the best describtion of the problem, found in the childrens TV show "the adventures of Mark Twain".
-
“I know your race. It is made up of sheep. It is governed by minorities, seldom or never by majorities. It suppresses its feelings and its beliefs and follows the handful that makes the most noise. Sometimes the noisy handful is right, sometimes wrong; but no matter, the crowd follows it. The vast majority of the race, whether savage or civilized, are secretly kind-hearted and shrink from inflicting pain, but in the presence of the aggressive and pitiless minority they don't dare to assert themselves. Think of it! One kind-hearted creature spies upon another, and sees to it that he loyally helps in iniquities which revolt both of them. Speaking as an expert, I know that ninety- nine out of a hundred of your race were strongly against the killing of witches when that foolishness was first agitated by a handful of pious lunatics in the long ago. And I know that even to-day, after ages of transmitted prejudice and silly teaching, only one person in twenty puts any real heart into the harrying of a witch. And yet apparently everybody hates witches and wants them killed. Some day a handful will rise up on the other side and make the most noise--perhaps even a single daring man with a big voice and a determined front will do it--and in a week all the sheep will wheel and follow him, and witch-hunting will come to a sudden end.

Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions are all based upon that large defect in your race--the individual's distrust of his neighbor, and his desire, for safety's or comfort's sake, to stand well in his neighbor's eye. These institutions will always remain, and always flourish, and always oppress you, affront you, and degrade you, because you will always be and remain slaves of minorities. There was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions.”

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That I have values and if I have values, then I have reasons to do things.

I guess I need to take it back one step further. I derive pleasure from things that taste good, and things that are pleasurable are desirable. Things can get complicated when you have to weigh one value against another, so there are times I won't eat chocolate ice cream because it would be more pleasurable not to. Flagellants derive pleasure from pleasing God, and that's what they feel they're accomplishing by whipping themselves. Some might actually have been masochists, some might have developed a taste for the the pain as a conditioned response to feeling the pain of being whipped and feeling the pleasure of pleasing God simultaneously.

ETA I read up a bit on them. It seems some were motivated by plague, droughts, famine, etc, and thought that by using penance they could relieve themselves of these maladies. So I guess I should mention that I forgot avoidance of suffering. Since Christianity promises rewards for the good people, and punishment for the bad people, I don't think any religious folks are going to be a good example of people who aren't motivated by pleasure and pain. I guess the Catholic Church finally disavowed them when they tried to claim that whipping yourself with them absolved you of sin.

Yes, yes, this is just a guess as to their motivations, they might be something different, but it seems the only reason anyone does anything is because of some pleasurable emotion. Feel free to point out an instance that someone is not motivated by it making them feel "good" though. Not necessarily physically good, but emotionally, or psychologically.

See, this is where you guys lose me. In the same sentence that you say there is purpose for me, you say there is no purpose. There is no overarching purpose for all people, so what? That doesn't mean purpose doesn't exist. It just means that it's created subjectively.


Whoever said there was no such thing as intersubjective values? I never claimed to be the only chocolate ice cream lover.


Since "society" has a general definition of people living and working together, you already have a subjective preference built in, as opposed to someone preferring to live in the wilderness all alone. Like I said:


Without fairness, people won't have an expectation that their subjective preferences will ever come about if they work together.

This largely amounts to an Argumentam ad Ignorantiam. You are assuming that we only do things to gain something, to experience pleasure or escape pain.
If a nun sacrifices her whole life to look after the downtrodden, you assume she would 'get' something from it, some emotion or whatnot. In this way, we pretend Altruism really isn't.

There is no way to disprove this assertion. If someone does something beyond the pale, he must be getting some pleasure from it. This is looking at the carrot and stick as the only approach. As I said, looking for masochism or complexes to describe everything, a Freudian facade made of what used to be called Virtue. We don't know what others experience nor their motivation, yet we deign to look inside and judge the virtuous as black as the rest on account of our presuppositions. This is True Total Depravity.

A value that I myself determine cannot be ascribed to anyone else. It was determined by my own special circumstances and if I feel strongly about it, I would insist upon it. No intersubjective values can exist in such a model, only my own subjective determinations. That I assume my values correspond to someone else, is impossible to verify, and likely false. Further, it means that there are no grounds to decry murder or genocide or rape by others, as my determinations of moral virtues do not apply to them, except by my own preference that it must. This is basic Will to Power, Strong Man and Might makes Right that this amounts to. So yes, there is purpose for you, but only you, and any Intersubjective application thereof amounts to enforcing your Will and in the long run, an apology for violence and clipping the wings of freedom. For others that 'agree' with you, would either hold their own values that are assumed similar, but probably aren't; or we are subjugating others values to our own or our values to the originator thereof. It is not a true Intersubjective Value then, but a suppression/subjugation or a farce. Maybe read Nietszche? This was part of his opposition to Christianity and why he cried that man's knife was red with the blood of God.

 

[Silmarien]

I’m probably communicating poorly due to my limited time to reply here, but what I mean to do is defend hedonism as the ultimate motivation for all actions, not necessarily a basis for morality. Hedonism doesn’t directly inform us as to what is moral, but it does answer the question as to why we should act morally. I don’t have a huge problem with your virtue ethics. I might need more help seeing how it’s paradoxical under a naturalistic worldview, though. It may not feel good to force down a kale salad, but people only do so in order to preserve their health, which helps them avoid undesirable consequences and enables them to pursue more pleasurable indulgences for a longer time. I would consider this a hedonistic motivation for engaging in something that’s not itself hedonic. I’m not seeing a paradox here.

I should specify that I see a paradox showing up on a materialistic ontology, not necessarily on a naturalistic one. (Though the broader naturalistic ontology will probably also collapse into unintelligibility due to its little brute fact problem. But that's a different issue entirely.)

Here's the paradox: is it better to be healthy or to be sick? Materialism would seem to imply that there is no qualitative difference between these two states, because there are no qualities present in physical reality. We merely consider health to be better because it is associated with physical comfort, which we subjectively enjoy.

The problem is that this is insane. If there were not a qualitative difference between health and illness, why would there be one between pain and pleasure? These things did not develop in a vacuum. Why can sensations be good and bad subjectively if objective reality is utterly lacking in such distinctions? A materialism that draws a solid line between the objective and the subjective has to either deny that the subjective exists at all, or it collapses into a form of dualism.

As for the rest of your post, I am not entirely comfortable putting morality (and intellectual pursuits more broadly) in the same category as eating a kale salad, i.e., unpleasant things that we reluctantly do to reap greater rewards later on. For a more practical example, I'm a language enthusiast. As far as hobbies go, this one is very demanding, since it requires a lot of work initially and then becomes something that you need to actively maintain, permanently. But the rewards associated with it are not something external to it--the skill is its own reward, even if it's a frustrating one to cultivate. Kale salads, on the other hand, are not their own reward, unless you end up really liking them.

 

[apogee]

What??????????????

Point to the specific post, where you gathered this. Also, point to the post where you claim; I credit the people in the world, as being reasonable and egalitarian.

Yeah, I was really just interpreting and responding, you are more than welcome to correct my interpretations.

I suppose I could just take a literalist approach, and assume that when you refer to Mountains and Robots, you're actually talking about mountains and robots. I don't mind either way.

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, I was really just interpreting and responding, you are more than welcome to correct my interpretations.

I suppose I could just take a literalist approach, and assume that when you refer to Mountains and Robots, you're actually talking about mountains and robots. I don't mind either way.

The burden would be on you, to support the conclusions you reached, by reading my posts.

Clear pattern with some on this thread, of putting words and interpretations in people's mouths.

 

[apogee]

The burden would be on you, to support the conclusions you reached, by reading my posts.

Clear pattern with some on this thread, of putting words and interpretations in people's mouths.

Actually, the burden is completely on you to form meaningful sentences in the first place and thereby prevent (malicious people?) like myself, from ever having to superimpose any unintended meaning on them.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, the burden is completely on you to form meaningful sentences in the first place and thereby prevent malicious people like myself, from ever having to superimpose any unintended meaning on them.

Major league; LOL

If you have no appetite to clarify how you arrived at your claims, just say so, it's cool.

 

[apogee]

Major league; LOL

If you have no appetite to clarify how you arrived at your claims, just say so, it's cool.

 

[bhsmte]

Let me clarify if you are not following along.

1. You made a claim as to the meaning of my post
2. I asked you how you arrived at that conclusion and asked you to support it
3. you respond that I don't write meaningful sentences (according to you)

Which leads to obvious questions.

Why would you draw conclusions as to the meaning of my posts, if I can't write meaningful sentences? Does something motivate you to draw certain conclusions? If not clear, why not ask for clarification?

You know, I always say, if you are not sure what someone means, just ask. Some like to place meaning though, I get that.

 

[apogee]

Let me clarify if you are not following along.

1. You made a claim as to the meaning of my post
2. I asked you how you arrived at that conclusion and asked you to support it
3. you respond that I don't write meaningful sentences (according to you)

Which leads to obvious questions.

Why would you draw conclusions as to the meaning of my posts, if I can't write meaningful sentences? Does something motivate you to draw certain conclusions? If not clear, why not ask for clarification?

You know, I always say, if you are not sure what someone means, just ask. Some like to place meaning though, I get that.

 

[gaara4158]

Here's the paradox: is it better to be healthy or to be sick? Materialism would seem to imply that there is no qualitative difference between these two states, because there are no qualities present in physical reality. We merely consider health to be better because it is associated with physical comfort, which we subjectively enjoy.

The problem is that this is insane. If there were not a qualitative difference between health and illness, why would there be one between pain and pleasure? These things did not develop in a vacuum. Why can sensations be good and bad subjectively if objective reality is utterly lacking in such distinctions? A materialism that draws a solid line between the objective and the subjective has to either deny that the subjective exists at all, or it collapses into a form of dualism.

If I understand this correctly, it's a paradox because you're not specifying a purpose for which a given state of health can be "better." There are plenty of purposes I can name for which being healthy or sick is better. But by asking which is simply "better," you're asking me to interpret which purpose I think you mean, and when I answer "Healthy, of course," you can reply "Why? Materialism doesn't provide a metric for determining what's subjectively good or bad." I didn't consult materialism for an answer, I took a guess at what you were really asking based on my understanding of human beings, and now I'm tasked with defending a straight line from materialism to subjective preferences, which might be an appropriate task for a materialist neuroscientist, not me.

The real problem here is the question itself, and maybe that's what you were getting at. There's no objective reason to favor health over sickness, pleasure over pain, life over death. I get that. This (usually) doesn't hurl me into a wicked storm of existential horror because I don't operate on an objective level. I'm not a purely rational being. When arguing facts, I try to come as close to objectivity as possible, but I can never reach full objectivity. Maybe this, too, should horrify me. But the same bubble of personal subjectivity that keeps me from ever fully apprehending reality is what shields me from the rational conclusion that nothing matters, all values are illusory, and life is a cruel series of unfortunate events intermittently punctuated by immeasurable tragedies with no reward for completion. Instead, I find there are things I enjoy, things I dislike, things I take seriously, and things I find trivial. There's plenty of meaning there for me despite my cosmic insignificance.

As for the rest of your post, I am not entirely comfortable putting morality (and intellectual pursuits more broadly) in the same category as eating a kale salad, i.e., unpleasant things that we reluctantly do to reap greater rewards later on. For a more practical example, I'm a language enthusiast. As far as hobbies go, this one is very demanding, since it requires a lot of work initially and then becomes something that you need to actively maintain, permanently. But the rewards associated with it are not something external to it--the skill is its own reward, even if it's a frustrating one to cultivate. Kale salads, on the other hand, are not their own reward, unless you end up really liking them.

The skill is its own reward, yes, just like health is its own reward. It's the studying part - like the forcing down of bitter, dry leaves - that's the frustrating and unpleasant means to the desired end. I'm not sure I see a fundamental difference between the two comparisons.

 

[Silmarien]

The real problem here is the question itself, and maybe that's what you were getting at. There's no objective reason to favor health over sickness, pleasure over pain, life over death. I get that. This (usually) doesn't hurl me into a wicked storm of existential horror because I don't operate on an objective level.

No, other way around. I've grown bored of the "atheism=nihilism" debate (though I'm honestly more convinced than ever that it's true), and have gone back to my trademark Neo-Aristotelian naturalism apologetics. I think there are good reasons to hold that health is in some sense objectively preferable to illness, as subjective preferences being utterly ungrounded in objective reality only seems to make sense if you're a substance dualist. I am not, and I cannot imagine you are either.

When arguing facts, I try to come as close to objectivity as possible, but I can never reach full objectivity. Maybe this, too, should horrify me. But the same bubble of personal subjectivity that keeps me from ever fully apprehending reality is what shields me from the rational conclusion that nothing matters, all values are illusory, and life is a cruel series of unfortunate events intermittently punctuated by immeasurable tragedies with no reward for completion.

Here's the thing: my bubble of personal subjectivity unfortunately does not prevent me from viewing reality through this particular lens, but I'm less and less convinced that it's actually a rational conclusion at all. There's nothing fully objective about it; it's simply another subjective vantage point, a figment of our collective imagination as we try to imagine what a truly objective perspective would look like.

The skill is its own reward, yes, just like health is its own reward. It's the studying part - like the forcing down of bitter, dry leaves - that's the frustrating and unpleasant means to the desired end. I'm not sure I see a fundamental difference between the two comparisons.

Here's the difference I see: if I'm writing out a list of Greek verbs, the means and the end are the same thing. I am using the language poorly now in order to be able to use the language better in the future. In contrast, you are not practicing the skill of health by eating kale. You are not dieting now in order to be able to diet better in the future. Though you could be trying to discipline yourself now to be able to better discipline yourself in the future, but that is very different than dieting for health reasons.

 

[Moral Orel]

This largely amounts to an Argumentam ad Ignorantiam. You are assuming that we only do things to gain something, to experience pleasure or escape pain.
If a nun sacrifices her whole life to look after the downtrodden, you assume she would 'get' something from it, some emotion or whatnot. In this way, we pretend Altruism really isn't.

There is no way to disprove this assertion. If someone does something beyond the pale, he must be getting some pleasure from it. This is looking at the carrot and stick as the only approach. As I said, looking for masochism or complexes to describe everything, a Freudian facade made of what used to be called Virtue. We don't know what others experience nor their motivation, yet we deign to look inside and judge the virtuous as black as the rest on account of our presuppositions. This is True Total Depravity.

It isn't an argument from ignorance. I'm not saying, "I have no idea what motivates people, therefore it must be pleasure". Plenty of nice people say they enjoy being nice. I just take their word for it if they say they derive pleasure from helping others. Is that not normal? Are the truly good people out there miserable? This nun you mention, do you imagine she's unhappy with her life? If she was, would you still call her a good person?

A value that I myself determine cannot be ascribed to anyone else. It was determined by my own special circumstances and if I feel strongly about it, I would insist upon it. No intersubjective values can exist in such a model, only my own subjective determinations. That I assume my values correspond to someone else, is impossible to verify, and likely false. Further, it means that there are no grounds to decry murder or genocide or rape by others, as my determinations of moral virtues do not apply to them, except by my own preference that it must. This is basic Will to Power, Strong Man and Might makes Right that this amounts to. So yes, there is purpose for you, but only you, and any Intersubjective application thereof amounts to enforcing your Will and in the long run, an apology for violence and clipping the wings of freedom. For others that 'agree' with you, would either hold their own values that are assumed similar, but probably aren't; or we are subjugating others values to our own or our values to the originator thereof. It is not a true Intersubjective Value then, but a suppression/subjugation or a farce. Maybe read Nietszche? This was part of his opposition to Christianity and why he cried that man's knife was red with the blood of God.

That's just nonsense. I'm not the only one who likes chocolate ice cream. For everyone else that likes chocolate ice cream, we hold an intersubjective value together. I don't need to force people to say they like it even if they don't. I don't assume either. Without prompting, plenty of people will say, "I like chocolate ice cream". So why is it that they are likely lying? But of course, another person who disagrees with me has to bring up terrible things to attempt to argue against my claims. "Look how awful this view makes you feel! You can't say terrible, horrible things are factually the wrong thing to do!".


Somebody, please tell me, am I the only one to notice the irony of using an appeal to emotion to argue against my "all values are subjective" claim and to argue for the "there are objective values" claim?

 

[apogee]

It isn't an argument from ignorance. I'm not saying, "I have no idea what motivates people, therefore it must be pleasure". Plenty of nice people say they enjoy being nice. I just take their word for it if they say they derive pleasure from helping others. Is that not normal? Are the truly good people out there miserable? This nun you mention, do you imagine she's unhappy with her life? If she was, would you still call her a good person?

All that anyone needs to do to demonstrate that Altruism exists, is to simply acknowledge the 'possibility' that humans are capable of acting against their own self-interests, for the sake of another. The only qualifier I would add, is that the 'perceived cost' to the altruist would need to be greater than the sum of any 'perceived benefits'. - The greater the perceived difference, then the greater the degree of altruism.

If you want to argue that these are just by-products of evolution, or socialisation, that's fine, whatever makes you happy, because 'subjectively' it would make no difference even if they were.

 

[Moral Orel]

All that anyone needs to do to demonstrate that Altruism exists, is to simply acknowledge the 'possibility' that humans are capable of acting against their own self-interests, for the sake of another.

Is it possible for an altruist to feel no happiness when they do good things? I don't know. As far as I know, it's never happened though.

The only qualifier I would add, is that the 'perceived benefit' to the altruist would need to be greater than the sum of any 'perceived costs'. - The greater the perceived difference, then the greater the degree of altruism.

How do you measure joy?

If you want to argue that these are just by-products of evolution, or socialisation, that's fine, whatever makes you happy, because 'subjectively' it would make no difference even if they were.

I agree. The source of motivation itself doesn't matter to this conversation.

 

[apogee]

Is it possible for an altruist to feel no happiness when they do good things? I don't know. As far as I know, it's never happened though.

I don't think they need to feel 'no' happiness just 'insufficient' happiness to provide justification. I would suggest that you could only ever 'know' this subjectively.

How do you measure joy?

I would say, the same way you would measure pain - subjectively.

 

[apogee]

Double post

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't think they need to feel 'no' happiness just 'insufficient' happiness to provide justification. I would suggest that you could only ever 'know' this subjectively.

I think if some joy is required for justification, that isn't good enough of a way to view things for Quid. We couldn't use the word "selfless" anymore, since it would still be at least a little bit about yourself. I would say it's a significant idea though.

I would say, the same way you would measure pain - subjectively.

Sure, people can subjectively feel however it is they feel.