Scott wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:1115141064.881749.250270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:1115054599.021707.319010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Scott wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:pmn4715vbrmigs17oatgp0p2dmtdbo1dsa@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:14:04 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:c85271lq873o237kj5urerkb42ci0eggnh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:13:34 GMT, "Scott"
<scott@nospam.net>
wrote:
In war? Same philosophy applies but on a larger scale. You
don't
have to
wait for the nukes to hit to initiate a just war.
No, but you should not lie about nukes existing to justify
your
war.
Spot the difference, you have to be actually at threat.
My war??? Which war is that SINCE I was onlyh making a
philosophical
point?
Spot the difference? I gave a real example of an actual
threat
and
related
it to a global situation. See the differrence?
Alan, you as an atheist, are stupid. In you world there is no
such
thing
as
a just war.....or an UNjust war. NONE. There is only war. But
you
are too
stupid or bull headed to realize that.
Poor Scott, stuck with having to tell people what they think.
You
haven't a clue to what I think or do
See Alan? I told you you were stupid. You can believe whatever
you
want. You
can believe there is no god. You can believe there is no
pluralistic
reality - that only material nature is reality. BUT there *are*
real
epistemic consequences to holding those philosophical
positions.
To
say you
are a materialist and then say there is no god but you believe
in
a
god is
what? Contradictory. The same holds within ethics. Similarly to
an
objective
god to explain creation, just and unjust wars (moral realism)
requires and
objective morality. That is a Natural Law theory is a necessity
with
a set
of Objective Moral Principles. Materialism (your philosophical
position)
denies the existence of objective moral principles.
That you can't comprehend what I just told you as a
philosophical
fact is
not necessarily my fault but you epidemiological ignorance.
You're
a
philosophically moral moron.
Scott
As I have told you several times, it is most certainly not a
philosophical fact that the ONTOLOGICAL position of matermialism
is
actually the ETHICAL/METAETHICAL position of moral relativism.
In
fact, it is a philosophical fact that they are not the same and
that
one cannot assume that one entails the other. Now please don't
try
to
start elaborately arguing that they do since that is just your
contentious view on the matter and not any kind of a
philosophical
FACT
unless you think you have some sort of an indisputable argument
that
you can state in five lines or less.
Educate yourself, materialism does not automatically imply moral
relativism. And, just because there are a lot more secular
humanists
and liberals out there that tend to be atheists than there are
atheists, that doesn't mean that atheism leads to secular
humanism
or
liberalism. In fact, it is the other way around.
Yes I know. liberalism is the dogma for most atheists.
I've read some of your post with Jim in alt.philosophy. You
couldn't
make
your case with him either. So educate yourself.
You are the one with a case to make. Which exchange are you
talking
about?
As the other guy said in
t.o., in you world humans are just "educated baboons who scratch
themselves
and throw ***** on each other." If materialism is the true nature
of
reality
there is no such thing as a god or *righteous* ethics.
What are you talking about? "In my world"...? That was *his*
contention. My point is that just because he is a materialist (if
he
even is) that doesn't mean that his particular moral opinions are
those
of other materialists.
I take it, for instance, you are male. I am also male. Therefore,
our
views of morality are the same? Cuz, ya know, like materialists,
us
men are all alike.
Dogma? You simply
proclaim that moral objectivism is a priori and expect everyone
(or
anyone)
to accept that as a valid answer even though I can give (and did
give) you
*evidence* to the contrary.
Well, *after you explain* the difference to your average person, if
you
ask them, then, whether they think that moral philosophy is a
priori or
empirical, you will get all sorts of replies. (The very fact that
you
have to explain the difference should strongly indicate that such
varying responses is not terribly meaningful.) On the other hand,
people who do not have to have these things explained to them in
the
first place will tend to say that moral philosophy is a priori and
even
more will tend to say that metaethics is a priori.
So your contention that morality varies from culture to culturem,
being
a metaethical assertion, is pretty uncontentiously a priori. It is
not
the kind of assertion you can provide something like "evidence"
for.
Instead, you must defend it philosophically. You certainly cannot
just
observe that people from different cultures have different beliefs
about what is or isn't moral to show such an assertion. That same
argument applies to all of knowledge, for instance, but perhaps
more
importantly it is a classic. It has been around for centuries and
it
has NO mileage in any sophisticated philosophical discussion.
Something like this is right up there with using double meanings of
words to "prove" someone wrong.
I think you try to put too much into a priori.
That's a gnoseology and not an epistemology. As I've accused
materialistic
atheists who somehow believe there *is* a right and wrong, good
and
evil,
and that those are based upon the circumstances and not something
relative
social norms are actually practicing a non-theistic form of
Gnosticism. And
their dogma is? A humanistic liberalism.
"Put to much into a priori"...? "A priori" is not a box you put
stuff
into. It also isn't a dogma one "believes in". "A priori" is an
adjective describing a proposition which indicates that the
proposition
is known to be true without making empirical observations about the
external world. Most people think that math, for instance, is a
priori. (In this case, "most people" would be virtually every
single
last mathematician, almost every philosopher and most everyone
else.)
You do not perform experiments to figure out the Pythagorean
Theorem --
you use pure deductive reasoning. If you did a bunch of
experiments,
perhaps measuring several triangles, to show it, most
mathematicians
would laugh at you.
Similarly, this business of observing different practices from
culture
to culture is about as sophisticated of a method of "proving"
ethical
relativism. I know that they are PhD anthropologists doing this
sort
of thing, so it seems really "legitimate" and all, but these people
though very well educated in their "field", are completely ignorant
of
the History of Ideas. If they were educated very much at all in
the
history of philosophy, they wouldn't even be approaching this issue
in
the manner that they do.
the history of ideas. There has been a history of ideas about god(s).
Does
that make them real and objective?
Well, that is really just completely pointless in respons to the quoted
text above, but you should know my reply to such a comment. Yes -- one
most certainly can make objective statements that are either true or
false about god(s). THAT -- the objectivity of a discussion about
god(s) -- just like in morality, doesn't mean that god(s) exist.
So, I am understandably unimpressed with this social scientists'
armchair philosophy you present to "prove" moral relativism on
materialist grounds. It is crude and unsophisticated and full of
fallacies. Perhaps you can get some mileage out of it
rhetorically,
but that is about it.
I'm unimpressed by your rhetoric.
And I'm unimpressed by yours....
"Gnoseology should be considered-along with ontology and natural
theology-as
one of the principle part of metaphysics. It is the metaphysical
theory of
knowledge.
Gnoseology is the metaphysics of truth. Its study has theoretical
importance
and vital relevance especially today because it warns us against
fundamental
errors which are very common at the present time."
Since you didn't respond to it in t.o. here it is again:
In t.o....?
talk.origins.
E=mc^2 had no evidential support until the 1940's. Since anyone
can
plug in
a number *value* for "m" and get a known for "E" it is reason-able
to
assume
that other advanced extraterrestrials would discover the same
equation. That
equation contains *absolutes*. Other equations even though
containing
know
absolutes give us probabilities or approximations, pi for
example.Euclidean
geometry show itself in fractals. So its reasonable to assume
these
would
also be discovered by advanced extraterrestrials. The point is
math,
by and
large, lends itself to evidential support so we assume
extraterrestrials
would discover the same *rules* and that these rules are universal
throughout
the Universe. When something new has been discovered in math the
Universe
Changed (a la James Burke) and gave us new insight in the
*materialistic*
universe - our knowledge of the universe progressed, advanced.
Hence,
mathematics is compatible with philosophical materialism.
Basically mathematics can be empirically demonstrated. That's just
ridiculous. Consult any mathematician if you disagree and ask them
if
math is demonstrated *empirically* this way. It is not
mathematics'
application to the physical world that makes math objective. If it
were, then Euclidean Geometry would actually be *false*. Again,
ask
any mathematician whether that's true -- tell them that we know
that
space and time are not Euclidean and see if that changes their
opinion
on whether Euclidean Geometry is "false".
The reason extraterrestials can discover the same theorems of
mathematics is because math is objective.
that math can be objective doesn't make morality objective.
How do you explain the objectivity of math on materialist grounds while
simultaneously reject the objectivity of morality just on the basis of
materialism?
It is easily seen to be so
in this day and age because it is a formal enterprise of
manipulating
symbols. Philosophy and moral philosophy, in particular, are
informal
and discursive. So it is quite natural and common for people who
are
not very exposed to the history of philosophy to think it isn't
"objective like mathematics". (Plus such a view coincides with a
big
movement in the 20th century to try and make such an intuition into
a
viable philosophical position. That movement was one of the
shortest
doomed to failure projects in the history of philosophy, by the
way.)
Indeed, if these extraterrestrials did not expeience the same kind
of
physical reality that we do, they very well may never discover many
of
the things we have and conversely discover many things we will
never
dream up even given an infinite amount of time to do so.
Although you say morality is similarly objective, I know of no
such
equivalency testing for moral reasoning as that for mathematical
reasoning.
Oh well! It failed the extgraterrestrials test! :-P
The test for objectivity normally is a test for propositional
content.
We are trying to figure out if moral statements are objectively
either
true or false. So, while the following test is not at all perfect
(or
even some sort of iron clad philosophical approach), it certainly
beats
your extraterrestrial test hands down:
Simply ask yourself if the following sentence makes sense "It is
true
or false that <insert expression>." So does it even make sense,
for
instance, to say "It is true or false that 'Don't do X'." No, it
doesn't, so the expression "Don't do X," has no propositional
content
-- it is not either true or false. Does it make sense to say "It
is
true or false that 'I like ice cream'." Yes it does -- it IS
either
true or false that some particular person likes ice cream. Does it
make sense to say "It is true or false that 'X is wrong'." Yes it
does....
and this proves what, exactly, about your moral objectivism? That you
can
set up a moral sentence in an objective way doesn't make morality
objective
and more than it'd make god objective using the same structure. The
argument
is still subjectivsm http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/wpollard/objsubj.pdf
Notice,
liking ice cream is still subjective and not a fact INDEPENDENT to
the
person hince it is subject to the person's subjectivity.
It is objectively either true or false as to whether or not you like
ice cream. Trust me it is. I may not be able to know whether you do
or not, but it most certainly is one way or the other at any given
point in time.
And, I never said that the nature and existence of god(s) was not
objective. How could anyone say that, really -- christians or atheists
alike. Atheists think that god objectively does not exist....
http://encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/Moral_objectivism
Moral objectivism is the position that certain acts are objectively
right or
wrong, independent of human opinion.
Indeed, and even if we all vote to have you not like ice cream, it will
not change the fact that you do (if you do in fact like ice cream).
As such, it stands in contrast to moral
relativism, which holds that morals are solely a function of human
opinion
and consensus, and do not derive from any external, abstract source.
_______Further, it is a subset of moral realism.______ You just shot
your
wad
On the contrary, they you just swallowed your wad. Moral objectivism
need not entail the ontological existence of morals. Period.
Models of objective morality may be atheistic (in the case of
objectivist
philosophy), theistic (in the case of the Abrahamic religions), or
pantheistic (in the case of Hinduism). The moral codes may stem from
reason,
from the divine, or from a combination of the two.
These various systems differ as to the nature of the objective
morality, but
agree on its existence. It is this diversity between codes of
objective
morality, and the seemingly endless debates between subjective people
over
irreconcilably different claims to objective morality that lead many
to
reject the concept entirely, in favor of subjective morality.
show us that morality is independent to subject person(s).
Show us that it is.
You just said "Yes" extraterrestrials would discover the same
moral
values/rules/laws as what we have discovered. (Never mind that we
can't
agree to moral universality.)
Of course we can. Lots of things are agreed to and observed
universally across cultures. This is another myth. I don't think
most
people in academia even think otherwise.
and people believe in god(s) too. Does that make god(s) independent
to
people and therefore objective/real?
It makes statements about god objectively either true or false. In
particular, a statement such as "God exists," can be objectively false.
Keep trying, you're on a roll now!
But! you have yet to lend any support for that
POV.
As is commonly known, for instance, by those that do not have to
have
basic philosophical terminology explained to them, the moral
subjectivist must do the explaining. Even philsoophers that are
moral
subjectivists know that moral statements have objective purport so
that
the burden of proof is on them to show that morality is subjective.
Morality is prima facia objective.
In fact, it is prima facia objective just like, for instance,
informal
logic is. Do you think that extraterrestrials would come up with
the
same principles of informal logic as we have? Why is that any
different than morality?
E=mc^2 can be proven mathematically and has evidential support.
No it cannot be "proven mathematically". It can only ultimately be
experimentally established (i.e. with "evidence") because it is an
empirical assertion. One cannot mathematically prove facts about
the
physical world. You can only at best derive them mathematically
from
other facts about the physical world which in turn rely on
evidential
support.
Math, on the other hand, is completely a priori -- it doesn't
require
empirical validation nor would empirical validation be acceptable
in
it.
What is
your proof and/or evidential support for an objective morality?
There is no such thing as evidential support for such a contention
just
as there is no such thing as evidential support for the opposite
contention.
so then there is no reason to inject such objectivity into the real
world.
No one is injecting anything anywhere. It is either there or not
there.
Are there
any absolutes in moral reasoning that would allow us to discover
(to
moral
progress towards) a greater knowledge of undeniable, unalienable,
imperative
Rights -- to advance towards moral truth? Unless you can do any of
that
(proof, evidence) you are injecting a pluralism into materialism,
into the
universe, that materialism has no reason to accept.
That is completely non sequitur -- how do you get "injecting
pluralism"
out of "unable to prove objectivity"? You either have to prove
objectivity or not. You cannot avoid your burden of proof by
injecting
some pluralism into it.
If morality is objective and is in the World then present a
convincing
argument. You never have.
"In the world" implies that morals "exist". You have to provide the
convincing argument that morals must exist for moral philosophy to be
objective. Since we, materialists and everyone else alike, commonly
consider subjects objective even if the subject matter doesn't
physically exist, you cannot just sit around and assume this.
Hence, until such proof
or evidence is forthcoming materialism rejects moral realism as it
does
other objective *imaginings* such as gods, souls, ghost, pink
unicorns, good
and evil, and right and wrong. Morality, then, is taken to be
anti-realism,
subjective, and relative. Like gods, Natural Law, Natural Rights,
unalienable human rights, inherent human dignity are all the stuff
of
myth
makers.
Once again, you are clearly jumping to conlcusions here. It
doesn't
matter if you agree with some person's argument for what morality
is
all about or not -- those arguments exist -- that much you cannot
deny.
So, you cannot just dismiss them in advance by claiming that
materialism entails moral relativism unless *YOU* have the knock
down
proof of *THAT* assertion of *YOURS*.
proof is for mathematicians and drunks. So me the evidence for your
moral
objectivism. Hell, you claim morality is objective like math but you
have
yet to present a moral proof.
*L* A "moral proof"? You are the one boldly asserting something about
materialism....
YOU have the burden of proof because your assertion would enable
you to
dismiss an entire class of arguments without haing to consider them
at
all.
As per materialism, the grounding for humanism is based upon myth.
Humanistic, atheistic, materialists are oxymoronic IMMFHO. ;)
Oh really....
yep far enough
Awww, merely questioning your assertions causes you to give up....
As I've said, I, like you, believe in moral realism
I do not believe in moral *realism*.
I do not think that morals
"exist" externally to me. I, like most people, also do not believe
that numbers "exist" or that the points and lines discussed in
geometry
are really actually physical objects that have materialized into
existence just because I have said something that is objectively
either
true or false about them. I also don't think the absurd notion
that
what we are actually talking about are the physical objects that
might
correspond to such things -- in other words, that Euclidean
Geometry is
really all about actual objects that are merely traingULARLY SHAPED
rather than actually being about traingles.
but I can't give
anything to support that belief form within a philosophy of
reality
based
upon materialism. So I can't call myself a materialist. But that's
not to
say I don't believe in material reality. I accept most everything
in
the
natural sciences, evolution as an example of one. I don't know if
we'll ever
know the truth of Super Strings. Like Father George Coyne
(http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VOFTalks.html) believes we
don't
need God to explain what's happening with the Universe. But like
him,
and
unlike philosophical materialism, I don't believe the Universe -
Reality -
is pointless. Science has not lead anyone to a belief in a god.
Call
it
intuitive reasoning, revelation, faith, or fantasy. I don't give a
deadrat's
***** and can't care what others think of my personal philosophy.
What
is
important to me is that a person's argumentive philosophy is
consistent.
< and unlike Alan>
Pointlessness has nothing to do with morality. Some cosmic purpose
to
the universe is not where morality comes from. Part of the problem
is
that you have a very limited idea of what would be sufficient
grounds
for a moral proposition. You are thinking about some kind of god
or
the universe commanding you to do something. That would actually
be
every bit as much of a moral subjectivist/moral relativist position
as
any.
I will agree that your personal purpose in life is not something
physical, but it also does not "exist". And, it isn't really
"real"
either -- its not the sort of thing that is objectively either true
or
false. And, it also has nothing to do with morality.
If you, however, can inject into moral reasoning a moral
objectivism
that
isn't just a *competing* moral theory to that of moral relativism,
James
Bruke will come knocking on your door STS. That is, if you can
present a
proof or evidence that moral realism *is* the nature of morality
and
demolish moral anti-realism, the Universe as we know it will have
changed.
No it will not have. That is why I say to educate yourself. There
is
a vast world of philosophy out there. Your view seems to be that
the
objectivity of morality requires some kind of faith. This view is
thousands of years old and it has not made it that far in the
marketplace of ideas. Most philosophers and other contributors to
the
history of ideas -- even those with faith -- think that moral
objectivism is based on reason.
.
