Where is the hope in atheism?

[TLK Valentine]

Let's say I was an atheist and for some reason I wanted to kill myself. I told you that I hated my life and wanted to end it. Being an atheist, I know that there is no afterlife and I will simply cease to exist. I also know that the second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is dying and when that time happens, all humanity will die too. So because all humanity will one day die and cease to exist, the universe will ultimately be no different than if humanity never existed at all. So who cares if my death hurts other people, they will eventually die and all memory of hurt will cease to exist. So atheist, talk me out of suicide. Why should I not kill myself? Explain why life and existence isn't futile? Good luck.

If you don't care about yourself, why are you asking (or apparently, demanding) others care on your behalf?

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.”

This speech originally came from "The Mysterious Stranger," one of Twain's later and (IMO) underappreciated works. </lit teacher>

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm really not sure what you want me to think. You can claim that your opinions aren't devalued, but if you're going to turn around and say that you have no problem admitting that the plight of women in Saudi Arabia doesn't cross your mind, you quite clearly do not care about women's rights as much as a moral realist might. At least for the realist, it is a moral failure to pay no mind to global moral crises. For the relativist, it isn't. That's definitely a devaluation compared to what your position could be.

In your eyes, sure. In my eyes though, no one's moral opinions are more important than mine. I can't imagine why you would think otherwise.

"If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable."
-Benito Mussolini

I don't know what you want me to do with this...so Mussolini didn't understand relativism. That's something you apparently have in common.

I would suggest reading Christian theology, or even just Christian literature.

I have, that's how I became an atheist.

You could also decide that anorexia was the better choice, but that wouldn't be conducive to a healthy existence.

And?

I'm a bona fide epistemological nihilist. I'm unconvinced that knowledge is truly possible at all.

The irony of you saying this after making a knowledge statement about anorexia and health is staggering. If it's not possible to know anything, why are you disagreeing with me...or anyone for that matter?

Seriously, you need to quit with this insinuation that anyone who disagrees with you needs to "admit" that their position is wrong, as if we all know the truth but are simply suppressing it. That's a particularly ugly fundamentalist tactic.

It's certainly no worse than you slapping a "that's an objective fact" after you state an opinion.

None of this is relevant. I asked you what you would say to a moral nihilist, not a moral realist. The nihilist has at least an accurate description of morality as you do (assuming that your supposedly accurate understanding of reality is accurate at all), because they will hold that it is fictional. That value is in fact fictional. They would also ask you to explain these "better" decisions that a supposedly accurate understanding of reality allows one to make, as the concepts of "better" and "worse" are likewise fictional. What value does holding moral opinions have over dropping them entirely?

I already answered...it's the same answer. Better would be in regards to whatever subjective values one holds.

 

[Silmarien]

I have, that's how I became an atheist.

Christian literature made you an atheist? What, you really didn't like C.S. Lewis or something?

The irony of you saying this after making a knowledge statement about anorexia and health is staggering. If it's not possible to know anything, why are you disagreeing with me...or anyone for that matter?

Why would a philosophical skeptic not disagree with people? Every time you talk about how accurate your picture of reality is, I slam my head against the desk. I'm willing to take on faith that our cognitive abilities match up to reality, but I am not arrogant enough to say that I know that this is true.

It's certainly no worse than you slapping a "that's an objective fact" after you state an opinion.

Well, no. What I did was pretty tautological--if Christianity is true, it is an objective fact about reality that Christianity is true, effectively. I do this because many atheists have a hard time wrapping their heads around a perspective in which Christianity actually is true. Failure of imagination, I suppose.

Acting like a fundamentalist is way worse than engaging in a bit of rhetorical tautology. Unless fundamentalism is totally okay from your subjective perspective, in which case I guess I should just argue that you know in your heart that you're wrong about everything, end of story.

I already answered...it's the same answer. Better would be in regards to whatever subjective values one holds.

Uh huh. How is it coherent to say that subjective morality allows one to make "better" decisions, but that "better" only refers to your subjective values? Seems a bit circular. Also, your claim that Mussolini didn't understand relativism certainly falls flat, because if he values enforcing his will upon others, then subjective morality is certaining great for achieving that. Better than nihilism, which doesn't really let you justify your actions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Christian literature made you an atheist? What, you really didn't like C.S. Lewis or something?

Overrated, IMO -- not that he had anything to do with my agnosticism.

 

[Silmarien]

Overrated, IMO -- not that he had anything to do with my agnosticism.

Compared to who? I like Chesterton's writing more, but I think Lewis was probably the better lay theologian of the two. My favorite of the Christian writers is Dostoevsky, though I don't really expect people to trek through Russian literature to get a taste for what Christianity looks like at its best. Lewis at least is accessible and evocative.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Compared to who? I like Chesterton's writing more, but I think Lewis was probably the better lay theologian of the two. My favorite of the Christian writers is Dostoevsky, though I don't really expect people to trek through Russian literature to get a taste for what Christianity looks like at its best. Lewis at least is accessible and evocative.

While I enjoy all three, I rate them a bit differently. Dostoevsky is certainly the most literary of the three, and probably the best writer. There is something universal, and universally malignant, in characters like Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov, or Rogozhin and Terentyev. Dostoevsky certainly seems a prophet.

Lewis could never escape the fact that he was an academic. You see him write a satire on academic trends and literary groups in Pilgrim's Regress; or making an Academic, Ransom, the hero in the Space Trilogy, with a lot of the plot revolving around university politics in That Hideous Strength. I certainly enjoy him the most of the three though. I think that the problem is that his best works are also of his lesser known ones: I think Till we have Faces is the best thing he's ever written, and his non-fiction it would be The Abolition of Man. His reputation rests on Screwtape, Narnia and Mere Christianity, though, works I also like, but certainly not on the same level.
Chesterton similarly could never escape being a Journalist. Even Everlasting Man is written with the flourishes thereof.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Christian literature made you an atheist? What, you really didn't like C.S. Lewis or something?

Lol I actually didn't...

But one could say, I had doubts, read the bible, and lost all doubt.

I'm willing to take on faith that our cognitive abilities match up to reality.

Then why bring it up?

Well, no. What I did was pretty tautological--if Christianity is true, it is an objective fact about reality that Christianity is true, effectively. I do this because many atheists have a hard time wrapping their heads around a perspective in which Christianity actually is true. Failure of imagination, I suppose.

You've changed your claim...classic goalpost moving.

Acting like a fundamentalist is way worse than engaging in a bit of rhetorical tautology. Unless fundamentalism is totally okay from your subjective perspective, in which case I guess I should just argue that you know in your heart that you're wrong about everything, end of story.

I don't have a problem with fundamentalists...I believe they're wrong, but it isn't a problem.

Uh huh. How is it coherent to say that subjective morality allows one to make "better" decisions, but that "better" only refers to your subjective values? Seems a bit circular.

I'm sure it does look circular...since both morals and values in this context are completely subjective.

Also, your claim that Mussolini didn't understand relativism certainly falls flat, because if he values enforcing his will upon others, then subjective morality is certaining great for achieving that.

He could argue so....I can argue against. In practice it looks exactly like every moral discussion ever had. The idea that relativism somehow endorses fascism or supports it in some way is ridiculous though.

Besides, if I were to start naming atrocities done in the name of some objective morality....or even some realist morality...I'd probably have enough to fill every page of this thread twice and then some. You don't really want to have that discussion, do you?

 

[Shadow]

Let's say I was an atheist and for some reason I wanted to kill myself. I told you that I hated my life and wanted to end it. Being an atheist, I know that there is no afterlife and I will simply cease to exist. I also know that the second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is dying and when that time happens, all humanity will die too. So because all humanity will one day die and cease to exist, the universe will ultimately be no different than if humanity never existed at all. So who cares if my death hurts other people, they will eventually die and all memory of hurt will cease to exist. So atheist, talk me out of suicide. Why should I not kill myself? Explain why life and existence isn't futile? Good luck.

I had suicidal thoughts for several years with depression. The suicidal dimensions of it have passed, but I can have some very dark days and moods when the depression is really eating me alive.

When I was suicidal, I tended to imagine myself dying as if someone else was watching me die (i.e. from outside my own perception). I could imagine myself lying on the floor, bleeding to death, or taking pills and going quietly in my sleep. So, when I was in a more thoughtful mood, it became clear that I really had no idea what "death" actually meant as an experience; instead I was inferring ideas about death and suicide I had got from other sources. I had nothing to really go on.

This may be stating the obvious, but it offers an escape because it points towards how unreal the decision to kill oneself is. Someone who has made a past suicide attempt and failed has the personal experience to know what it looks like, but no-one else does. In the same way, no-one has a direct experience of death because they are already dead. You can read a book or watch a documentary about "dying", or read up on how brain chemistry and electrical impulses change with brain death, but you won't know what the pain would feel like or what those last few moments in your head will be.

In other words, every attempt at a rational approach to the subject of suicide is going to "fail" on some level because we don't have any knowledge or experience of what the decision really looks like, feels like, etc. All efforts to support suicide or oppose it are merely "rationalisations", so rather than listening to your reason- you listen to your emotions.

So then we get to the problem: is there really any emotional state which is so bad that it makes suicide a proportionate response? I think the experts agree that the decision to commit suicide is one that usually impulsive. We're dealing with really basic and fundamental impulses- not a reasoned argument. For the most part suicide is the result of feeling trapped and wanting some form of "escape". Its a sense of paranoia that the universe is conspiring against you and that nothing you do will change it or make it better. Thinking about suicide and simply considering it an option is often enough for the moment to pass if you give it enough time.

Black Humour can help you get through the moment. One time I had an inner monologue which went something like; "If life really is so futile to end it, is it not also so futile that its not worth the effort of ending it?" Or put another way, If my life is worthless and I decide to cut myself and bleed to death on the floor, am I not destroying a carpet that has more value than me? Someone paid for that perfectly nice carpet and the last thing I'm going to do is ruin it. If I'm such a complete failure, surely I'm only going to screw up the suicide attempt anyway? So why bother? you're wasting valuable time and resources on the emergency services.

As should be pretty obvious, "reason" isn't really part of this picture at all. Its a question of mood changes, giving yourself the time for the mood to pass and trusting yourself that it will pass. Atheism is only a factor in the decision to commit suicide at a very abstract level in how there isn't a relationship between you and god to tell you that life is sacred, or that god will make good things happen to you or protect you from harm or bad people, or that god has a "purpose" for you.

When you strip it down, you simply "are". you didn't chose to be born; you don't make a conscious choice to breath; you don't make a choice to feel pain or not; so why should we chose to die? Suicide feels that it is about control, but it is an illusion of control. you're going to die no matter what you do. So the choice is not if you die, but when. You either die now or later. Death is always there and always will be even when you don't think about it.

If you accept that your going to die anyway, then its still suicide when you accept a natural death because it is intentional. Dying when I'm 28 or dying when I'm 80 or 90 or whatever- what's the difference? Why the rush? Your just taking the long route and you still get a degree of control over how you live and die. The advantage of taking the long route is you have the chance to be happy, something a (successful) suicide doesn't offer. suicide is meaningless. death is meaningless. meaning isn't some great abstraction, its just your mood reflecting who you really are. Being depressed can be intensely meaningful and being happy can be meaningful if it is a genuine reflection of your state of mind and not simply an act you put on to appease others when your in distress. If you get in to the right state of mind and accept that suicide is just theatre, that's a chance worth taking.

That's probably not the answer you're looking for. But I'm still here and I'm usually pretty happy with that.

 

[Silmarien]

Lol I actually didn't...

But one could say, I had doubts, read the bible, and lost all doubt.

Eh, I honestly don't think the Bible is the best place to go for Christian theology. Not without a whole pile of biblical scholarship to make heads or tails of it. That thing is a historical and literary artifact, not a rulebook.

Then why bring it up?

Because if you start insisting that knowledge can be explained, you're in dangerous waters.

You've changed your claim...classic goalpost moving.

No. You just didn't read my claim the first time around. Or the second time, or the third time. I have always been saying that if Christianity (i.e., orthodox Christianity) is true, then it follows that the Christian worldview, which includes things like relationship with God, is also true. Because that's what Christianity is.

I don't have a problem with fundamentalists...I believe they're wrong, but it isn't a problem.

Really? I'd consider their political agenda a danger to society.

I'm sure it does look circular...since both morals and values in this context are completely subjective.

So how does subjective morality allow people to make "better" decisions?

He could argue so....I can argue against. In practice it looks exactly like every moral discussion ever had. The idea that relativism somehow endorses fascism or supports it in some way is ridiculous though.

Given that relativism has been used to defend fascism in the past, I don't see how you can claim that it's ridiculous to say that it can be used this way, unless you're going to start denying history. If a relativist can offer a coherent argument against fascism that neither amounts to "I don't like it because it makes me feel bad" nor borrowing from moral realism, I would certainly like to hear it.

Besides, if I were to start naming atrocities done in the name of some objective morality....or even some realist morality...I'd probably have enough to fill every page of this thread twice and then some. You don't really want to have that discussion, do you?

Actually, yes. I would very much like to hear about the evils that the idea that all humans have inherent dignity has led to. And how anything can be considered an atrocity at all without already assuming some degree of moral realism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Eh, I honestly don't think the Bible is the best place to go for Christian theology. Not without a whole pile of biblical scholarship to make heads or tails of it. That thing is a historical and literary artifact, not a rulebook.

You don't think the bible is the best place to go for "Christian theology"....

Because if you start insisting that knowledge can be explained, you're in dangerous waters.

Why?

No. You just didn't read my claim the first time around. Or the second time, or the third time. I have always been saying that if Christianity (i.e., orthodox Christianity) is true, then it follows that the Christian worldview, which includes things like relationship with God, is also true. Because that's what Christianity is.

Here's your claim...the first time around...

"If the Christian God is real, then anyone who is not in a proper relationship with him does have a hole in their life that cannot be filled in any other way."

And I said that can only be true if it can be demonstrated that relationship is unique in some way. The problem is that even if we assume its true, there's no telling which aspects are true and which aren't. The only parts of christianity absolutely necessary for it to be true are the existence of Jesus and a Christian god....everything else is still subject to debate, including heaven and hell, creation, armageddon, relationships with jesus/god/holy spirit, etc.

That is, unless you're claiming that the idea of christianity being true is the idea of a universe that's dramatically different from our own...in which case, who cares?

Really? I'd consider their political agenda a danger to society.

Because society would do so well without them? Fundamentalists aren't that much worse than a regular person acting in their own best interests.

So how does subjective morality allow people to make "better" decisions?

Inasmuch as any correct information lets one understand reality better. Sometimes it's mundane, sometimes it's profound.

Given that relativism has been used to defend fascism in the past, I don't see how you can claim that it's ridiculous to say that it can be used this way, unless you're going to start denying history. If a relativist can offer a coherent argument against fascism that neither amounts to "I don't like it because it makes me feel bad" nor borrowing from moral realism, I would certainly like to hear it.

Well first you would need to explain how relativism somehow "defends" fascism in the first place for me to argue against it. You'll forgive me for not taking Il Duce's word for it.

Actually, yes. I would very much like to hear about the evils that the idea that all humans have inherent dignity has led to. And how anything can be considered an atrocity at all without already assuming some degree of moral realism.

Well for starters, advocating eugenics is very much an argument of moral realism. Performing a small evil of eliminating all of the genetically inferior people of the earth will lead to the elimination of many genetic deficiencies for future generations. It's a simple example of doing what's logically and objectively best for the majority.

For further examples, see Swift's A Modest Proposal.

 

[Silmarien]

You don't think the bible is the best place to go for "Christian theology"....

That is what I just said. I would consider it the worst place to start, unless you already have a degree in Ancient Near Eastern Studies.

Why?

Because we can't demonstrate that the first principles of logic actually match up to reality.

Here's your claim...the first time around...

"If the Christian God is real, then anyone who is not in a proper relationship with him does have a hole in their life that cannot be filled in any other way."

And I said that can only be true if it can be demonstrated that relationship is unique in some way. The problem is that even if we assume its true, there's no telling which aspects are true and which aren't. The only parts of christianity absolutely necessary for it to be true are the existence of Jesus and a Christian god....everything else is still subject to debate, including heaven and hell, creation, armageddon, relationships with jesus/god/holy spirit, etc.

That is, unless you're claiming that the idea of christianity being true is the idea of a universe that's dramatically different from our own...in which case, who cares?

Why does it need to be demonstrated that a relationship with God is unique? Truth is not dependent upon our ability to prove it or not--presumably photons existed before we discovered them. In any case, I don't see any debate within Christianity over the idea that Jesus is calling people into correct relationship with God, so I would consider that a necessary aspect as well.

Because society would do so well without them? Fundamentalists aren't that much worse than a regular person acting in their own best interests.

You do not see a difference between a highly organized social movement with a political agenda and regular people acting in their own best interests?

Inasmuch as any correct information lets one understand reality better. Sometimes it's mundane, sometimes it's profound.

Correct scientific information, perhaps, but how can you prove that your philosophical views are a better representation of reality? What evidence do you have that moral subjectivity actually leads to better decision making than moral realism?

Well first you would need to explain how relativism somehow "defends" fascism in the first place for me to argue against it. You'll forgive me for not taking Il Duce's word for it.

If there are no objective moral truths, then fascism is as acceptable as any other system. There is nothing inherently wrong about it. You don't have to like fascism, but there's no real reason that fascists should not do everything in their power to make their vision reality.

Well for starters, advocating eugenics is very much an argument of moral realism. Performing a small evil of eliminating all of the genetically inferior people of the earth will lead to the elimination of many genetic deficiencies for future generations. It's a simple example of doing what's logically and objectively best for the majority.

For further examples, see Swift's A Modest Proposal.

First of all, there is no necessary link between eugenics and moral realism. The arguments in favor of eugenics are tied specifically to certain versions of utilitarianism, which is one of the reasons that many moral realists do not like utilitarianism. I specifically asked you about the dangers entailed by the claim that all humans have intrinsic dignity, which implies a form of moral realism that is incompatible with eugenics. It would be helpful if you addressed what I am actually saying instead of attacking straw men.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly, it is unclear to me how anyone can condemn eugenics as an atrocity without already assuming moral realism. What grounds would you have to condemn it if humans did not have intrinsic dignity? Eugenics is simply a facet of an alternative approach to morality that you do not personally care for, not evidence that there is anything wrong about the uglier forms of utilitarianism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is what I just said. I would consider it the worst place to start, unless you already have a degree in Ancient Near Eastern Studies.

Ok...

Because we can't demonstrate that the first principles of logic actually match up to reality.

And yet if we want to get on with our lives and have a discussion...we'll have to act as if they do.

Why does it need to be demonstrated that a relationship with God is unique?

Easy, because you're claiming it's something the non-christian cannot have. So unless there's some phenomenal aspect of this relationship that I cannot get from my neighbor (for example) your claim is empty and unproven.

You do not see a difference between a highly organized social movement with a political agenda and regular people acting in their own best interests?

With regards to the damage they do to society/mankind/the world...the difference is minor.

Correct scientific information, perhaps, but how can you prove that your philosophical views are a better representation of reality? What evidence do you have that moral subjectivity actually leads to better decision making than moral realism?

All I'm relying on here are two premises...

1. Accurate information about reality allows one to make better decisions regarding reality.

2. Relativistic morality is the most accurate description of morality as it exists.

You asked for how I would explain the value of such morals to a nihilist (or anyone for that matter)...that is the explanation. If you're struggling with understanding of those premises, then tell me which part you're struggling with.

If there are no objective moral truths, then fascism is as acceptable as any other system. There is nothing inherently wrong about it. You don't have to like fascism, but there's no real reason that fascists should not do everything in their power to make their vision reality.

And you may have noticed that they do lol....

You still haven't explained how relativism "defends" fascism though...even from your understanding, relativism is completely neutral on the matter.

You can also leave out "if there are no objective moral truths" next time. Even if there were objective moral truths...you've got no way to show them true, or even figure out what they are. You'd simply be making them up...which puts us right back at relativism.

First of all, there is no necessary link between eugenics and moral realism. The arguments in favor of eugenics are tied specifically to certain versions of utilitarianism, which is one of the reasons that many moral realists do not like utilitarianism. I specifically asked you about the dangers entailed by the claim that all humans have intrinsic dignity, which implies a form of moral realism that is incompatible with eugenics. It would be helpful if you addressed what I am actually saying instead of attacking straw men.

I ignored the human dignity part because I've never seen that a necessary part of moral realism.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly, it is unclear to me how anyone can condemn eugenics as an atrocity without already assuming moral realism. What grounds would you have to condemn it if humans did not have intrinsic dignity? Eugenics is simply a facet of an alternative approach to morality that you do not personally care for, not evidence that there is anything wrong about the uglier forms of utilitarianism.

Watch closely...

I think eugenics is bad.

If you're unclear how I came to that moral opinion, just ask.

 

[Silmarien]

And yet if we want to get on with our lives and have a discussion...we'll have to act as if they do.

Of course. But you are the one making the stronger claim that knowledge can be explained. Remember what they say about burdens of proof?

Easy, because you're claiming it's something the non-christian cannot have. So unless there's some phenomenal aspect of this relationship that I cannot get from my neighbor (for example) your claim is empty and unproven.

If we are assuming that Christianity is true, why on earth would you view a relationship with God as at all analogous to a relationship with your neighbor? Whether a non-Christian can have a relationship with God is a very different question than whether someone is missing something by not having that relationship at all.

All I'm relying on here are two premises...

1. Accurate information about reality allows one to make better decisions regarding reality.

2. Relativistic morality is the most accurate description of morality as it exists.

You asked for how I would explain the value of such morals to a nihilist (or anyone for that matter)...that is the explanation. If you're struggling with understanding of those premises, then tell me which part you're struggling with.

These are not premises. They're undefended conclusions masquerading as premises.

1. How do we determine whether decisions are better or worse if these are simply subjective value judgments? Do we have reason to believe that accurate information leads to better decision making at all? Accurate scientific knowledge has led to any number of decisions that I would not consider "better," including building weapons of mass destruction.

2. Metaethics is outside of the sphere of the natural sciences, so how are you going to demonstrate that moral relativism is an accurate description of reality at all? You are simply begging the question, and you have many competing theories, both within moral realism and anti-realism.

I ignored the human dignity part because I've never seen that a necessary part of moral realism.

Then provide an example that is applicable to every version of moral realism. Utilitarianism is far more controversial than human dignity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course. But you are the one making the stronger claim that knowledge can be explained. Remember what they say about burdens of proof?

And we already established that even if I showed 1+1=2 , you aren't going to cede the point. So I'm not going to bother.

Whether or not knowledge can be explained is irrelevant....since you freely admit that you have to at least pretend it is in order to have this conversation.

If we are assuming that Christianity is true, why on earth would you view a relationship with God as at all analogous to a relationship with your neighbor? Whether a non-Christian can have a relationship with God is a very different question than whether someone is missing something by not having that relationship at all.

Because there's nothing to show it's anything significantly more.

You're the one claiming it leaves a hole in the lives of non-christians. You're the one who needs to explain why.

I could just as easily claim there's a hole in your life by not having a relationship with my neighbor Bob...but unless I can show that there's something unique about this relationship which you cannot get anywhere else....I'm just blowing hot air, aren't I?

These are not premises. They're undefended conclusions masquerading as premises.

1. How do we determine whether decisions are better or worse if these are simply subjective value judgments? Do we have reason to believe that accurate information leads to better decision making at all? Accurate scientific knowledge has led to any number of decisions that I would not consider "better," including building weapons of mass destruction.

Again, you asked how I would explain it. I explained it. You need not agree...and I genuinely don't care if you do.

2. Metaethics is outside of the sphere of the natural sciences, so how are you going to demonstrate that moral relativism is an accurate description of reality at all? You are simply begging the question, and you have many competing theories, both within moral realism and anti-realism.

It's the only explanation I'm aware of without gaping logical flaws. As such, it's the only explanation which applies to any and every moral behavior/choice.

Then provide an example that is applicable to every version of moral realism. Utilitarianism is far more controversial than human dignity.

Why? There's nothing wrong with my example...I was even kind enough to keep it out of the religious realm, since you're so concerned about my contempt.

What version of moral realism insists upon human dignity as an inseparable aspect?

 

[Silmarien]

And we already established that even if I showed 1+1=2 , you aren't going to cede the point. So I'm not going to bother.

Whether or not knowledge can be explained is irrelevant....since you freely admit that you have to at least pretend it is in order to have this conversation.

I said you were welcome to try. But if you don't want to bother, that's fine too. It was relevant because you were insisting that knowledge had to be explicable to be meaningful, which would have troubling consequences if actually applied to other knowledge claims.

Because there's nothing to show it's anything significantly more.

You're the one claiming it leaves a hole in the lives of non-christians. You're the one who needs to explain why.

I could just as easily claim there's a whole in your life by not having a relationship with my neighbor Bob...but unless I can show that there's something unique about this relationship which you cannot get anywhere else....I'm just blowing hot air, aren't I?

The better comparison would be if someone said that there was nothing about your relationship with your neighbor Bob that you couldn't get from having a pet dog. We're talking about different types of relationships, and if we're taking as axiomatic that Christianity is true, then a relationship with the omnibenevolent grounds of being would be within the realm of possibility. I am not sure how you could view that as anything but unique.

Again, you asked how I would explain it. I explained it. You need not agree...and I genuinely don't care if you do.

This is a pitfall of relativist thinking, I would say. Someone offers genuine criticism of your reasoning, and your answer is, "That's my opinion, and I don't care if you disagree."

It's the only explanation I'm aware of without gaping logical flaws. As such, it's the only explanation which applies to any and every moral behavior/choice.

Where are the gaping logical holes in the competing theories? The nihilist can just as easily (and far more coherently) hold that all moral judgments are fictitious, and our moral choices ultimately groundless emotional responses. The realist can say that not all behaviors and choices are morally correct. Subjectivism seems to be the least coherent option on the table, since it's the only one simultaneously holding that morality both matters and yet doesn't.

Why? There's nothing wrong with my example...I was even kind enough to keep it out of the religious realm, since you're so concerned about my contempt.

The problem with your example is that moral realism doesn't imply utilitarianism. If you think utilitarianism in specific is morally problematic, I would agree.

What version of moral realism insists upon human dignity as an inseparable aspect?

It's always been pretty central to Christian philosophy (and plays a role in other religious traditions as well), got pushed into the spotlight by Kant during the Enlightenment, and was pretty major throughout the second half of 20th century. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights didn't come out of nowhere.

Honestly, you could be a moral realist and have an approach whereby universal human dignity is the only thing taken as axiomatic, the source from which all subjective moral judgments spring.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I said you were welcome to try. But if you don't want to bother, that's fine too. It was relevant because you were insisting that knowledge had to be explicable to be meaningful, which would have troubling consequences if actually applied to other knowledge claims.

I, nor anyone else, can do anything with a claim of knowledge which you cannot explain. It's substantially no different from making no claim at all.

The better comparison would be if someone said that there was nothing about your relationship with your neighbor Bob that you couldn't get from having a pet dog. We're talking about different types of relationships, and if we're taking as axiomatic that Christianity is true, then a relationship with the omnibenevolent grounds of being would be within the realm of possibility. I am not sure how you could view that as anything but unique.

Compare it to whatever you like...the point still stands that until you can explain this claim, it remains empty.

This is a pitfall of relativist thinking, I would say. Someone offers genuine criticism of your reasoning, and your answer is, "That's my opinion, and I don't care if you disagree."

Lol you asked how I would explain the value of my perspective to a hypothetical moral nihilist...which you claim not to be. Why then should I care about your objections to my explanation?

Where are the gaping logical holes in the competing theories? The nihilist can just as easily (and far more coherently) hold that all moral judgments are fictitious, and our moral choices ultimately groundless emotional responses.

If they were simply emotional responses, then no one would ever face any moral conundrums...they would simply be doing that which felt right. Moral opinions are a bit more complex than that.

The realist can say that not all behaviors and choices are morally correct.

So can the relativist...the difference is the relativist doesn't pretend these are facts.

Subjectivism seems to be the least coherent option on the table, since it's the only one simultaneously holding that morality both matters and yet doesn't.

It matters to the subject. It's really difficult to believe that this concept still eludes you. Is there nothing in your life that you realize that only you value? A personal relationship? A memento of no objective value?

Surely there's something in your life which you value in a way that nearly everyone will not understand, holds no real objective value, and yet intensely matters to you regardless of anyone else's opinion of it?

The problem with your example is that moral realism doesn't imply utilitarianism. If you think utilitarianism in specific is morally problematic, I would agree.

It is...but it at least tries to draw objective moral value from factual information. To be a moral realist, and believe that moral facts exist without any way to access them or demonstrate them is even more problematic.

It's always been pretty central to Christian philosophy (and plays a role in other religious traditions as well), got pushed into the spotlight by Kant during the Enlightenment, and was pretty major throughout the second half of 20th century. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights didn't come out of nowhere.

This isn't some discussion of high minded value declarations....we're talking about how morals operate in real life. I'm fairly certain that they still burned witches alive in Kant's time...so perhaps he should've been sharing his philosophies regarding human dignity when all those moral realists who were so certain that they were doing factually good things by burning factually evil women alive.

Honestly, you could be a moral realist and have an approach whereby universal human dignity is the only thing taken as axiomatic, the source from which all subjective moral judgments spring.

One could try...but it can often be difficult to retain one's dignity, or protect the dignity of others, without trampling the dignity of a few at times. I don't think one would be very successful as such a moral realist.

 

[Silmarien]

I, nor anyone else, can do anything with a claim of knowledge which you cannot explain. It's substantially no different from making no claim at all.

Alright. Then explain again how we know that 1+1=2 and that the laws of logic hold.

If they were simply emotional responses, then no one would ever face any moral conundrums...they would simply be doing that which felt right. Moral opinions are a bit more complex than that.

Are they? If you're obsessive enough, you can face conundrums about utterly mundane things like what to have for dinner. Our neurotic attachments to various concepts doesn't grant them a mystical moral dimension.

So can the relativist...the difference is the relativist doesn't pretend these are facts.

It's bizarre to say that something is morally correct, but that it's not a fact that it's morally correct. How is that not self-contradictory? You can say that you just have an irrational emotional response to it, but normal people do not call emotions correct or incorrect.

It matters to the subject. It's really difficult to believe that this concept still eludes you. Is there nothing in your life that you realize that only you value? A personal relationship? A memento of no objective value?

Surely there's something in your life which you value in a way that nearly everyone will not understand, holds no real objective value, and yet intensely matters to you regardless of anyone else's opinion of it?

Nothing that would have anything resembling moral value.

It is...but it at least tries to draw objective moral value from factual information. To be a moral realist, and believe that moral facts exist without any way to access them or demonstrate them is even more problematic.

Are you actually familiar with moral realism? Utilitarianism is far from the only theory out there that tries to draw objective moral value from factual information. Neo-Aristotelianism is pretty big on empirical psychology and what it means to live a good life as a rational agent.

This isn't some discussion of high minded value declarations....we're talking about how morals operate in real life.

No, we're not. We're talking about metaethics, not ethics. Can some moral systems be better or worse than others? Or is the question of whether defending human rights is better than committing genocide on a racial minority ultimately just a matter of perspective?

I'm fairly certain that they still burned witches alive in Kant's time...so perhaps he should've been sharing his philosophies regarding human dignity when all those moral realists who were so certain that they were doing factually good things by burning factually evil women alive.

Witch burnings were over by the middle of the 18th century, so were unlikely to have coincided with Kant. If you want moral realists who were also activists, though, I'd take a look at some of those French Resistance intellectuals like Simone Weil and Albert Camus. (The latter in particular is an interesting case, given his take on values and meaning in general.)

One could try...but it can often be difficult to retain one's dignity, or protect the dignity of others, without trampling the dignity of a few at times. I don't think one would be very successful as such a moral realist.

Why not? A moral realist certainly does not need to be morally perfect. You can end up in a situation where all options are bad--that doesn't mean that trampling down one person's dignity to protect someone else's is suddenly morally acceptable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Alright. Then explain again how we know that 1+1=2 and that the laws of logic hold.

You're kidding me, right? You've had more posts than I care to count at this point to explain what it is about this supposed relationship with god that's so unique/special and quality your claims. You haven't done it....and we both know you won't.

If you had anything substantive, you'd have said it by now.

Are they? If you're obsessive enough, you can face conundrums about utterly mundane things like what to have for dinner. Our neurotic attachments to various concepts doesn't grant them a mystical moral dimension.

I've got no idea what you're talking about here. You're saying that you can feel like having chicken for dinner and feel like not having chicken for dinner?

It's bizarre to say that something is morally correct, but that it's not a fact that it's morally correct. How is that not self-contradictory?

That's why I avoid using the word correct and use "good" instead.

You can say that you just have an irrational emotional response to it, but normal people do not call emotions correct or incorrect.

They do state opinions as facts though...

"This chocolate ice cream is the best ever!"

Yet I'd bet you still somehow knew that was just an opinion...

Nothing that would have anything resembling moral value.

That's because you see them as magically external to yourself.

Are you actually familiar with moral realism? Utilitarianism is far from the only theory out there that tries to draw objective moral value from factual information. Neo-Aristotelianism is pretty big on empirical psychology and what it means to live a good life as a rational agent.

And?

No, we're not. We're talking about metaethics, not ethics. Can some moral systems be better or worse than others? Or is the question of whether defending human rights is better than committing genocide on a racial minority ultimately just a matter of perspective?

If you can show how it's not a matter of perspective, I'll cede the point.

Witch burnings were over by the middle of the 18th century, so were unlikely to have coincided with Kant. If you want moral realists who were also activists, though, I'd take a look at some of those French Resistance intellectuals like Simone Weil and Albert Camus. (The latter in particular is an interesting case, given his take on values and meaning in general.)

Nah, they still executed witches in his time...

Last Person Executed as a Witch in Europe Gets a Museum | Smart News | Smithsonian

Why not? A moral realist certainly does not need to be morally perfect. You can end up in a situation where all options are bad--that doesn't mean that trampling down one person's dignity to protect someone else's is suddenly morally acceptable.

Lol so they just hold a bunch of morals they cannot adhere to? Which typically ends up causing a lot of cognitive dissonance, guilt, shame, etc. As time goes on, they modify their moral code with a bunch of exceptions...till it doesn't look like human dignity is all that important.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but human dignity isn't some intrinsic aspect of moral realism.

 

[Silmarien]

You're kidding me, right? You've had more posts than I care to count at this point to explain what it is about this supposed relationship with god that's so unique/special and quality your claims. You haven't done it....and we both know you won't.

No, I won't, because what you're asking me to do is as bizarre as explaining the difference between the phenomenal experience of the colors red and blue. It's your position that knowledge must be explicable to be meaningful that I'm challenging as fundamentally flawed.

I've got no idea what you're talking about here. You're saying that you can feel like having chicken for dinner and feel like not having chicken for dinner?

More or less. If you're neurotic enough, you could get really worked up over if you want to eat the chicken now or save it for later, or which ice cream flavor to pick. If this is what a moral dilemma ultimately amounts to, it's nothing to write home about.

That's because you see them as magically external to yourself.

There you go telling people what they believe again.

Nah, they still executed witches in his time...

Last Person Executed as a Witch in Europe Gets a Museum | Smart News | Smithsonian

Which apparently sparked outrage throughout Switzerland and the Holy Roman Empire. It was already viewed negatively by that point, so I don't see how it's relevant. No 18th century intellectual needed to go around educating people that there was something wrong with the witchcraft craze. To the degree that they would even have been able to at all given technological limitations.

Lol so they just hold a bunch of morals they cannot adhere to? Which typically ends up causing a lot of cognitive dissonance, guilt, shame, etc. As time goes on, they modify their moral code with a bunch of exceptions...till it doesn't look like human dignity is all that important.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but human dignity isn't some intrinsic aspect of moral realism.

For me, it certainly is. Moral realism is not one thing, so people will prioritize things differently. As long as you think that at least some moral statements have truth value, you are a realist.

In any case, modifying moral codes is more a feature of relativism than realism. I don't have a problem admitting that my moral standards are much higher than I can live up to. The realist doesn't lower their standards so that their present state, whatever it is, is somehow "good." That standard is something to aspire to, so there's something teleological about morality instead of it being whatever we feel like at the time.

Anyway, we're going around in circles here. You're not going to convince me that moral relativism is anything but nihilism in denial, and I don't really see the point in arguing about realism either, so it's probably about time to put an end to this.