Trickle-Down Morality

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Trickle-Down Morality

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

People generally assume equality when it comes to moral questions: They assume that all [sentient]* entities are equal and that if one murders and it is wrong, then another one that murders is also wrong.

*probably add this, not entirely sure
TheGreatDebate wrote:I am just very curious as to why all the charges of “murderer,� “disgusting,� etc… are flying around. I assume you all are atheists? From what moral authority do you assign these terms from?
But this gem of a quote (referencing people calling the God of the Bible evil) I believe exposes the fact that underneath the surface, this is not the case.

If a government kills, for its own purposes, or to defend its ideology, it's war, not murder. If an individual person kills for these same reasons, it is.

I ask the question: Do you believe morality trickles down, or up, or in any other direction?

Or do you believe that higher moral authority equals more morally permissible actions?

Bonus question: If you're religious, and your answer was no, morality does not trickle down, how does this sit with the idea that one should imitate Jesus or some other figure? Wouldn't that mean that you definitely shouldn't try to do this, since [insert religious figure] had moral authority, and you don't, making the act you imitate potentially an evil one when you do it?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Post #41

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:I might have misunderstood what you said about the "rock so heavy" thing. I don't see why doing the logically impossible would be a sign of power. Usually if people talk nonsense, we think they are lacking in something.
The creation of a rock so heavy you can't lift it is a sly linguistic grift that doesn't prove you're not omnipotent. If you are omnipotent, and someone asks you, "Can you make a rock so heavy you can't lift it?"

You reply, "No, and that's no failing of mine, but a failing of the language you're asking me in."

The sly linguistic grift is in passing off the ability to lift any rock as a failing, when it is not.

The fastest runner "can't" try as hard as he can and still lose the race. But that's not a true "can't" - no deficit of ability - it's a linguistic grift based upon using the word can't in a way similar to a double negative, thus passing a positive off as a negative, and passing off the ability to try as hard as you can and still lose as a positive.

I'm not asking God to break logic. I'm asking it to break physics.
The Tanager wrote:All it would take is two versions of theism that give us a being worthy of worship. Are you saying there is only one version of theism that fits that?
For each person, yes I am saying that. Every religious person thinks their theology is correct. They each think their version of God is correct, and that other versions of God are incorrect.

Of all possible mega-entities, with totally randomised traits, you (as would any other religious person) would say most were not God. You have many traits on your list even though "worthy of worship" is admittedly the most important. I wonder how minor a deity would have to be before you would say it wasn't God despite being good and kind and loving and all that jazz. I think some people qualify as worthy of worship, and I've been sort of worshiping them in a way.

Even if each trait is simply a yes or no, you have created the universe on your list and only one mega-entity can possibly have done that. That means that with (for example) six other traits on the list, and even assuming the universe has a creator, the odds of your God existing are 1/2^6, or 1/64.
The Tanager wrote:You might have proven that if the Bible said that only Jewish induced wars were righteous but it talks about foreign countries doing the same kinds of things to the Jews because of their sins as a country. The same standard is used.
Show me where it says God told or even permitted those others to kill Jews and you've got a case.
The Tanager wrote:Okay. But why think that this reaction makes them more moral?
It's more the reactions of others to them. They can simply insult to win, and others will cheer them on. This is the stronger position. This is what is assumed to be true. The weaker position - assumed to be false - must use arguments and must prove its case.
The Tanager wrote:What does it mean to lose a debate?
To have your opponent concede, or to have neither party concede if the burden of proof was on your opponent.
The Tanager wrote:Why are they the moral high ground?
It's the accepted morality by society.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Post #42

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:The creation of a rock so heavy you can't lift it is a sly linguistic grift that doesn't prove you're not omnipotent. If you are omnipotent, and someone asks you, "Can you make a rock so heavy you can't lift it?"

You reply, "No, and that's no failing of mine, but a failing of the language you're asking me in."

The sly linguistic grift is in passing off the ability to lift any rock as a failing, when it is not.

The fastest runner "can't" try as hard as he can and still lose the race. But that's not a true "can't" - no deficit of ability - it's a linguistic grift based upon using the word can't in a way similar to a double negative, thus passing a positive off as a negative, and passing off the ability to try as hard as you can and still lose as a positive.

I'm not asking God to break logic. I'm asking it to break physics.
You are asking God to break logic. You are asking God to break the laws of physics (make an apple and a bowling ball fall at different speeds within identical conditions) while maintaining the laws of physics (the identical conditions which require them to fall at the same speed). Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are proposing, perhaps?
Purple Knight wrote:For each person, yes I am saying that. Every religious person thinks their theology is correct. They each think their version of God is correct, and that other versions of God are incorrect.

Of all possible mega-entities, with totally randomised traits, you (as would any other religious person) would say most were not God. Of all possible mega-entities, with totally randomised traits, you (as would any other religious person) would say most were not God. You have many traits on your list even though "worthy of worship" is admittedly the most important. I wonder how minor a deity would have to be before you would say it wasn't God despite being good and kind and loving and all that jazz. I think some people qualify as worthy of worship, and I've been sort of worshiping them in a way.

Even if each trait is simply a yes or no, you have created the universe on your list and only one mega-entity can possibly have done that. That means that with (for example) six other traits on the list, and even assuming the universe has a creator, the odds of your God existing are 1/2^6, or 1/64.
While I think one 'version' is true and that this being is worthier of worship than any other version if they were true, that's a different issue. I think there are "less-worthy" versions of a creator God that would still be worthy of worship if they existed as the creator. Applying that (under your principle) to the theism vs. atheism question, that makes theism more probable (since there are more possible ways to get that answer) and places the burden on atheism. Again, I don't buy the principle and don't accept this conclusion as true from this argument but you say you buy the principle.
Purple Knight wrote:
You might have proven that if the Bible said that only Jewish induced wars were righteous but it talks about foreign countries doing the same kinds of things to the Jews because of their sins as a country. The same standard is used.
Show me where it says God told or even permitted those others to kill Jews and you've got a case.
I'm thinking of passages like 2 Kings 17 when Assyria captures Samaria. Verse 7 (and following) says this took place because the Israelites had sinned against God, worshipping other gods, following the practices of the nations that God drove out before them (including child sacrifice v. 17), as well as new practices the Israelite kings introduced.
Purple Knight wrote:It's more the reactions of others to them. They can simply insult to win, and others will cheer them on. This is the stronger position. This is what is assumed to be true. The weaker position - assumed to be false - must use arguments and must prove its case.
Most people I know think the complete opposite. Those who insult do so because they have the weaker position. They insult because they don't have reason on their side.
Purple Knight wrote:To have your opponent concede, or to have neither party concede if the burden of proof was on your opponent.
Then I say "so what?" to losing a debate. An opponent may not concede for various reasons: to try to save face, stubbornness, to avoid an undesired conclusion, because the opposing side did not make a good case, etc. Hardly any debate is ever won or lost.
Purple Knight wrote:It's the accepted morality by society.
Why is that a good standard of what constitutes the moral high ground?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Post #43

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:You are asking God to break logic. You are asking God to break the laws of physics (make an apple and a bowling ball fall at different speeds within identical conditions) while maintaining the laws of physics (the identical conditions which require them to fall at the same speed). Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are proposing, perhaps?
I am simply proposing that it make an exception, which it has every power to do, if it is all-powerful.
The Tanager wrote:While I think one 'version' is true and that this being is worthier of worship than any other version if they were true, that's a different issue. I think there are "less-worthy" versions of a creator God that would still be worthy of worship if they existed as the creator. Applying that (under your principle) to the theism vs. atheism question, that makes theism more probable (since there are more possible ways to get that answer) and places the burden on atheism. Again, I don't buy the principle and don't accept this conclusion as true from this argument but you say you buy the principle.
Most versions of God at least require it to be the creator. Even if a mega-entity did create the universe (which is not assured) it could be good or evil. That's a fifty-fifty chance you're wrong right off the bat, and the chance God exists only goes down as you add more requirements.

This is because there can realistically only be one creator, at most. If many helped, then none of them is the creator.
The Tanager wrote:I'm thinking of passages like 2 Kings 17 when Assyria captures Samaria. Verse 7 (and following) says this took place because the Israelites had sinned against God, worshiping other gods, following the practices of the nations that God drove out before them (including child sacrifice v. 17), as well as new practices the Israelite kings introduced.
That Assyrian fellow didn't genocide anyone. In fact, he resettled them!

That particular Israelite King named Horsea or some such might have died, but it doesn't seem to say.
The Tanager wrote:Most people I know think the complete opposite. Those who insult do so because they have the weaker position. They insult because they don't have reason on their side.
If most people believed as you do, insults would quickly go the way of the dodo.

People tend to understand that insults mean you have the weaker position? Then why are the rules about civility so necessary on this forum?
The Tanager wrote:Then I say "so what?" to losing a debate. An opponent may not concede for various reasons: to try to save face, stubbornness, to avoid an undesired conclusion, because the opposing side did not make a good case, etc. Hardly any debate is ever won or lost.
I will concede when I know I'm wrong. I recently conceded to Jehovah's Witness because it was clear I was wrong in my interpretation of what was, and was not, in the Garden of Eden.
The Tanager wrote:Why is that a good standard of what constitutes the moral high ground?
It's something we all accept on some level whether we like it or not. Very, very few people break with society's standards.

If God does exist, I don't think he would allow people following true morality to be verbally beaten into submission. At some point before they change their mind, I would think he'd intercede.

If God does not exist, society is the highest morality anyway.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Post #44

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:
You are asking God to break logic. You are asking God to break the laws of physics (make an apple and a bowling ball fall at different speeds within identical conditions) while maintaining the laws of physics (the identical conditions which require them to fall at the same speed). Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are proposing, perhaps?
I am simply proposing that it make an exception, which it has every power to do, if it is all-powerful.
An exception for it to supernaturally change/suspend the affect of gravity in that moment on one item but not another? You are asking for it to have the ability to perform a miracle? Or something else?
Purple Knight wrote:Most versions of God at least require it to be the creator. Even if a mega-entity did create the universe (which is not assured) it could be good or evil. That's a fifty-fifty chance you're wrong right off the bat, and the chance God exists only goes down as you add more requirements.

This is because there can realistically only be one creator, at most. If many helped, then none of them is the creator.
But there could be good God version 1 and good God version 2 and good God version 3, all "worthy of worship" that is the one existing. All of them a different way to answer the atheism-theism question. It doesn't matter that only one actually exists. In the exact same way that the probability of a die is either 1/2 or 1/6 or 1/20 or whatever; it's only one answer but there are many ways to get a non-1/2 probability and less ways to get a 1/2 probability. So, we still have more logically possible ways theism is true and, by your principle (which I disagree with), atheism the burden to prove itself.
Purple Knight wrote:That Assyrian fellow didn't genocide anyone. In fact, he resettled them!

That particular Israelite King named Horsea or some such might have died, but it doesn't seem to say.
The Jews didn't genocide anyone either. The Book of Joshua talks about wiping out people groups and then later in the same book talk about how those same people groups are still living around. It's exaggerative talk. It occurs in other literature of the time period as well.

The Assyrians would have killed many people in the battle. 2 Kings 17 talks about how this and the following exile were allowed by God because of their sins, the same sins that were the cause of the peoples who were killed and driven out from the land by Israel. The prophets are full of statements of God's judgment on Israel (and other nations) for their sins. In Isaiah 9 Israel's judgment for their sins is talked about. In Isaiah 10:5 it talks about Assyria being the one providing that judgment and then immediately turns to judging Assyria for their motivations and subsequent actions. The Jewish conquest was God using human countries to judge the sins of other countries. God does the exact same thing to the Jewish people for their sins as a country.
Purple Knight wrote:If most people believed as you do, insults would quickly go the way of the dodo.
Those that insult online are a small percentage of the overall population. Many avoid online forums because of that small percentage. The internet, and its anonymity, provides people who are angry and irrational the opportunities to spew that irrationality without any real consequence, so they do it. People are trapped in that way of thinking and this traps them further, so they continue to do it.
Purple Knight wrote:People tend to understand that insults mean you have the weaker position? Then why are the rules about civility so necessary on this forum?
Even the ones that insult will often say that their opponent resulting to insults proves that the opponent has nothing of worth to say. People act as though there is one standard but then, when they break that standard, make excuses. We are emotional people and the emotions can overtake the logic at times. I'm better at controlling the emotional responses then I used to be. Nobody is perfect. We need reminding and accountability.
Purple Knight wrote:I will concede when I know I'm wrong. I recently conceded to Jehovah's Witness because it was clear I was wrong in my interpretation of what was, and was not, in the Garden of Eden.
Great! So, why are you wanting to be like those who don't concede, don't respond rationally to why they aren't conceding, but simply insult the opponent instead?
Purple Knight wrote:It's something we all accept on some level whether we like it or not. Very, very few people break with society's standards.
To judge the truth of this we'd have to define "society" which is very hard to do. Is it American society? What about all the sub-cultures? What about an individual who is a part of various sub-cultures?
Purple Knight wrote:If God does exist, I don't think he would allow people following true morality to be verbally beaten into submission. At some point before they change their mind, I would think he'd intercede.

If God does not exist, society is the highest morality anyway.
If God exists and allows free will then we can see why people believe different things and behave differently.

If God does not exist, then there is no highest morality as far as I can tell. There are just different moralities.

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Trickle-Down Morality

Post #45

Post by Dimmesdale »

Purple Knight wrote: People generally assume equality when it comes to moral questions: They assume that all [sentient]* entities are equal and that if one murders and it is wrong, then another one that murders is also wrong.
People nowadays yes (at least, in liberal democracies). In the past not so much. Not universally at least. In the past a king may have had the right to kill whoever offended him. A commoner may not have had the same right. So, hierarchy has always played into moral questions for much of human history. Someone might say that our own age is "radically egalitarian."
Purple Knight wrote:*probably add this, not entirely sure
TheGreatDebate wrote:I am just very curious as to why all the charges of “murderer,� “disgusting,� etc… are flying around. I assume you all are atheists? From what moral authority do you assign these terms from?
But this gem of a quote (referencing people calling the God of the Bible evil) I believe exposes the fact that underneath the surface, this is not the case.
Indeed. One may see this as a holdover from older times, like I pointed out above, or something intrinsic to the human psyche: that it seeks for a "moral authority" beyond the bounds of "common morality." I tend more towards the view that it is grounded in some sort of archetype.
Purple Knight wrote:If a government kills, for its own purposes, or to defend its ideology, it's war, not murder. If an individual person kills for these same reasons, it is.

I ask the question: Do you believe morality trickles down, or up, or in any other direction?
Well let's see: why does a government have the right to kill? To enforce justice, is it not? Why does an individual person also have the right to kill? Same thing: justice. A government may not have the right to kill just as an individual may not have the right to kill: because such would not be an instance of justice but injustice. So context is important. The macrocosm (society) in my view should mirror the microcosm (individual) regarding justice.
Purple Knight wrote:Or do you believe that higher moral authority equals more morally permissible actions?
I don't think so. Not simply in the "might equals right" sense. I think it is a matter of circumstance and how justice can be best effected/safeguarded. If, for example, we let vigilantes take justice into their own hands with no concern for the rule of law, abuses would crop up in short order. Our judicial system is such that it mitigates against anarchy and various other corruptions. Not to say it is a perfect system, but it is a necessary one. Once again, for the sake of justice.
Purple Knight wrote:Bonus question: If you're religious, and your answer was no, morality does not trickle down, how does this sit with the idea that one should imitate Jesus or some other figure? Wouldn't that mean that you definitely shouldn't try to do this, since [insert religious figure] had moral authority, and you don't, making the act you imitate potentially an evil one when you do it?
I'll have to think about this one. ;)

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Post #46

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:An exception for it to supernaturally change/suspend the affect of gravity in that moment on one item but not another? You are asking for it to have the ability to perform a miracle? Or something else?
If you call that a miracle, sure.
The Tanager wrote:But there could be good God version 1 and good God version 2 and good God version 3, all "worthy of worship" that is the one existing. All of them a different way to answer the atheism-theism question. It doesn't matter that only one actually exists. In the exact same way that the probability of a die is either 1/2 or 1/6 or 1/20 or whatever; it's only one answer but there are many ways to get a non-1/2 probability and less ways to get a 1/2 probability. So, we still have more logically possible ways theism is true and, by your principle (which I disagree with), atheism the burden to prove itself.
Only one being created the universe and it must be worthy of worship for theism to be true. There are at least as many ways for it to be non-worthy even if the universe was created as worthy. If it's rapey, that's a no (I... I bloody assume). If it bites the heads off bats, that's a no. See where I'm going?
The Tanager wrote:The Jews didn't genocide anyone either. The Book of Joshua talks about wiping out people groups and then later in the same book talk about how those same people groups are still living around. It's exaggerative talk. It occurs in other literature of the time period as well.
The permission to kill them all was not an exaggeration. You also can't find similar talk with similar gusto about people being told, by God, to simply kill herds of Jews including children. The best you can find is that some people have killed Jews, and that God allowed it, but that doesn't make it justified. Remember, everything that happens, including murder, God technically allows in the same way, by just not stopping it. Doesn't make murder right. Those Assyrians probably burned in Hell.
The Tanager wrote:Those that insult online are a small percentage of the overall population. Many avoid online forums because of that small percentage. The internet, and its anonymity, provides people who are angry and irrational the opportunities to spew that irrationality without any real consequence, so they do it.
The consequence would be that irrationality being taken to task. But it never is, and insults win wherever they are permitted.
The Tanager wrote:Even the ones that insult will often say that their opponent resulting to insults proves that the opponent has nothing of worth to say. People act as though there is one standard but then, when they break that standard, make excuses. We are emotional people and the emotions can overtake the logic at times. I'm better at controlling the emotional responses then I used to be. Nobody is perfect. We need reminding and accountability.
We have accountability. People who say stupid things get immediately taken to task.
The Tanager wrote:Great! So, why are you wanting to be like those who don't concede, don't respond rationally to why they aren't conceding, but simply insult the opponent instead?
To be in the right. If I was just right, I wouldn't have to concede.
The Tanager wrote:To judge the truth of this we'd have to define "society" which is very hard to do. Is it American society? What about all the sub-cultures? What about an individual who is a part of various sub-cultures?
Whatever people are immersed in, is what they tend to imitate.
The Tanager wrote:If God exists and allows free will then we can see why people believe different things and behave differently.
I still think (if God is all you say it is) that allowing people to be rewarded obviously and consistently for the wrong thing would be out of bounds. This would mislead people.

Reward and punishment is how we all learn morality to begin with, even if it evolves into a greater understanding later. If one thing is always rewarded, that's obviously right.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Post #47

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:
An exception for it to supernaturally change/suspend the affect of gravity in that moment on one item but not another? You are asking for it to have the ability to perform a miracle? Or something else?
If you call that a miracle, sure.
It really matters whether you call that a miracle, or more importantly, what definition you attach to the term because I might be misunderstanding you by thinking you are calling it a miracle. If you are asking for a miracle, then what's the big deal about a mega-entity performing a miracle? Why would such a being be impossible?
Purple Knight wrote:Only one being created the universe and it must be worthy of worship for theism to be true. There are at least as many ways for it to be non-worthy even if the universe was created as worthy. If it's rapey, that's a no (I... I bloody assume). If it bites the heads off bats, that's a no. See where I'm going?
You are going down a different road. The binary question (which I used to make a critique of your use of a specific principle) was whether theism or atheism is true, not whether the god-creator is good or evil. I used that specific example (instead of something like whether God is good or evil) because you don't agree with the conclusion that your principle spits out. I'm trying to show that you are inconsistent in the use of the principle and, therefore, should drop the principle.

There is one way to get the answer of atheism, namely that no god exists. There are various versions of theism that have a creator that is worthy of worship. That there are various versions of theism that have a creator or creators that are not worthy of worship does not matter. In fact, it just adds to the probability (using your principle) that theism should be viewed as true unless atheism can be proven.

Remember that this was the part about how the die could have two sides, three sides, four sides, five sides, six sides, twenty sides, etc., each with a corresponding number. That one single die could be any of those types of dice, you said, makes it more probable that the die rolled would not land on a 1.
Purple Knight wrote:The permission to kill them all was not an exaggeration. You also can't find similar talk with similar gusto about people being told, by God, to simply kill herds of Jews including children. The best you can find is that some people have killed Jews, and that God allowed it, but that doesn't make it justified. Remember, everything that happens, including murder, God technically allows in the same way, by just not stopping it. Doesn't make murder right. Those Assyrians probably burned in Hell.
Your argument was that, in the Bible, God justifies the Jews' wars but not wars against the Jews by others. I said that the Bible shows wars as God's judgment over both Jew and Gentiles for their wicked actions. You seem to be wanting the Hebrew scriptures to contain books with God talking to the other nations, not addressed to Jews at all, and telling them to drive out and kill the Jews; books addressed wholly to non-Jews? If so, why should one expect such a thing? What we have are books addressed to Jews, some telling them to fight for the promised land, driving out and killing in judgment of the actions of wicked nations as well as books addressed to Jews that speak of Jews being driven out and killed in judgment of their wicked actions.
Purple Knight wrote:The consequence would be that irrationality being taken to task. But it never is, and insults win wherever they are permitted.
How can it be taken to task?
Purple Knight wrote:To be in the right. If I was just right, I wouldn't have to concede.
Okay. But you have been judging the other way around, which doesn't work. Let's say Person X is your opponent. You are arguing this (at least it seems to me you are):

(1) If Person X is right, then Person X doesn't concede.
(2) Person X doesn't concede.
(3) Therefore, Person X is right.

This is a textbook fallacy called affirming the consequent.

(1) If it is raining outside, then there are clouds in the sky.
(2) There are clouds in the sky.
(3) Therefore, it is raining outside.

We know the second is obviously false because we see clouds without it raining quite often. But I may be misunderstanding your point and this is an unintended straw man I've attacked.
Purple Knight wrote:
To judge the truth of this we'd have to define "society" which is very hard to do. Is it American society? What about all the sub-cultures? What about an individual who is a part of various sub-cultures?
Whatever people are immersed in, is what they tend to imitate.
Sure. I don't see how that helps us define "society".
Purple Knight wrote:I still think (if God is all you say it is) that allowing people to be rewarded obviously and consistently for the wrong thing would be out of bounds. This would mislead people.

Reward and punishment is how we all learn morality to begin with, even if it evolves into a greater understanding later. If one thing is always rewarded, that's obviously right.
I don't understand why you think irrational people who simply hurl insults are rewarded. They get a pat on the back from other irrational people. They largely get ignored by rational people or insulted back by those unable to control their emotions in the face of irrationality and insults. That's a reward?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Post #48

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:It really matters whether you call that a miracle, or more importantly, what definition you attach to the term because I might be misunderstanding you by thinking you are calling it a miracle. If you are asking for a miracle, then what's the big deal about a mega-entity performing a miracle?
Just that it would prove they exist. Even if they achieved some crazy feats through technology, then if I see something I previously thought impossible, it proves that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy.
Purple Knight wrote:Only one being created the universe and it must be worthy of worship for theism to be true. There are at least as many ways for it to be non-worthy even if the universe was created as worthy. If it's rapey, that's a no (I... I bloody assume). If it bites the heads off bats, that's a no. See where I'm going?
The Tanager wrote:You are going down a different road. The binary question (which I used to make a critique of your use of a specific principle) was whether theism or atheism is true, not whether the god-creator is good or evil.
But we've been all through this. If it's evil, then to you, it's not God, and to you, theism is not true. The distinction is that you wouldn't fall to your knees and worship any mega-entity. The claim that God exists is far more specific.

I do not say we won't meet Q or something like it someday. I just say that even if we do, that doesn't mean it's God, even if it created the universe. I don't think they're likely, I don't even count them possible (though my view could easily be changed by meeting one) but mega-entities might exist.
The Tanager wrote:Remember that this was the part about how the die could have two sides, three sides, four sides, five sides, six sides, twenty sides, etc., each with a corresponding number. That one single die could be any of those types of dice, you said, makes it more probable that the die rolled would not land on a 1.
Right, and there are not more ways to get a god you will say is god. Most of the possible gods, you would not find worthy of worship.
The Tanager wrote:You seem to be wanting the Hebrew scriptures to contain books with God talking to the other nations, not addressed to Jews at all, and telling them to drive out and kill the Jews; books addressed wholly to non-Jews? If so, why should one expect such a thing? What we have are books addressed to Jews, some telling them to fight for the promised land, driving out and killing in judgment of the actions of wicked nations as well as books addressed to Jews that speak of Jews being driven out and killed in judgment of their wicked actions.
But there's just no comparison between kill them all even the babies and the Assyrians who resettled what was left after they presumably won some battle. God even tells Jews that they are special to him.
The Tanager wrote:How can it be taken to task?
I've seen people jumped on before. It doesn't take long for a Trump supporter to get dogpiled. Everyone will tell them they're wrong. It's nice if it includes why, but I don't think it has to.
The Tanager wrote:Okay. But you have been judging the other way around, which doesn't work. Let's say Person X is your opponent. You are arguing this (at least it seems to me you are):

(1) If Person X is right, then Person X doesn't concede.
(2) Person X doesn't concede.
(3) Therefore, Person X is right.

This is a textbook fallacy called affirming the consequent.

(1) If it is raining outside, then there are clouds in the sky.
(2) There are clouds in the sky.
(3) Therefore, it is raining outside.

We know the second is obviously false because we see clouds without it raining quite often. But I may be misunderstanding your point and this is an unintended straw man I've attacked.
Not at all, and it would be such a fallacy if I was claiming it was deductively absolutely true. I just don't see a better way to discern moral truth than by watching people who already know it, because I have a blind spot.

I'm not saying all people who never concede are always right. I'm saying people who are always right never have to concede. From what I see, there are a lot of the latter.
The Tanager wrote:Sure. I don't see how that helps us define "society".
If people are immersed in a group of people who all have this particular way of thinking and acting, they tend to follow it. Most people want to find truth. Most people try to discover truth and try to unravel lies.
The Tanager wrote:I don't understand why you think irrational people who simply hurl insults are rewarded. They get a pat on the back from other irrational people. They largely get ignored by rational people or insulted back by those unable to control their emotions in the face of irrationality and insults. That's a reward?
It's easy if you simply define them all as irrational and emotional. I see it as morality.

Most people would get upset and angry if you kept asking questions such as, well, how do you know it was really the Nazis who were evil? We all know that. Questions are not generally tolerated.

I'm simply suggesting based on evidence that their apparent irrationality is the result of a higher morality wherein it's simply obvious that more things are evil.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Post #49

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:Just that it would prove they exist. Even if they achieved some crazy feats through technology, then if I see something I previously thought impossible, it proves that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy.
But we weren't talking about proof of the mega-entity. We were analyzing a principle you proposed to decide the relative probabilities involved in the two answers to a binary question. The initial binary question was "is there one or multiple standards for all humans?". The analogy involved rolling a 1 or rolling a non-1 on an unknown sided "die". You said that there were more logically possible ways to get a non-1 because the die may have three sides, twenty sides, hundreds of sides, etc. Since there were more logically possible ways to get the answer of "rolling a non-1" you said this made that answer more probable. You then applied this same principle to the initial question of "one or multiple standards?" saying that there were more logically possible ways to get the answer that there are multiple standards (such as 1 standard for every 2 humans, one for every three, one for every 20, etc.). You used that to argue that the burden is therefore on the moral objectivist to prove their view.

The above reasoning you went through had nothing to do with actually proving that the die had 20 sides or that there are actually multiple standards (and not just people claiming or acting like there are multiple ones). This discussion, therefore, has nothing to do with proof of the existence of a mega-entity.

All that needs to be done is to show there are various logically possible mega-entities that fit with the answer of theism and only one way to get the answer of atheism (that no gods exist). If you want to rationally use this principle, then you should do so consistently, being a theist unless you can prove theism is false.
Purple Knight wrote:But we've been all through this. If it's evil, then to you, it's not God, and to you, theism is not true. The distinction is that you wouldn't fall to your knees and worship any mega-entity. The claim that God exists is far more specific.
Yes, I agree. But I think there are multiple versions of theism that are worthy of worship, if they were true. All we need are 2 versions to have theism's probability being higher than atheism's probability. If we just have 2 versions, then, according to the principle you applied to argue against moral objectivism, that's a 67% probability theism is true and 33% probability atheism is true. And, according to your reasoning, that means one should be a theist unless one can prove theism is false.
Purple Knight wrote:But there's just no comparison between kill them all even the babies and the Assyrians who resettled what was left after they presumably won some battle. God even tells Jews that they are special to him.
Elisha in 2 Kings 8 is talking to the future king of Aram and weeps because he knows what he will do to the Israelites, including killing children and pregnant women. Psalm 137 ascribes this action to the Babylonians. Hosea 10 and 13 is about judgment coming on Israel and Samaria from others and includes children being killed. Nahum 3 possibly talks about the Assyrians doing this to other countries.
Purple Knight wrote:I've seen people jumped on before. It doesn't take long for a Trump supporter to get dogpiled. Everyone will tell them they're wrong. It's nice if it includes why, but I don't think it has to.
Why not just ignore the insulting, irrational people? It seems to me more moral to not jump on the opponents with the insults. Jumping on others with insults betrays an insecurity in one's claims or a void of love and decency.
Purple Knight wrote:Not at all, and it would be such a fallacy if I was claiming it was deductively absolutely true. I just don't see a better way to discern moral truth than by watching people who already know it, because I have a blind spot.

I'm not saying all people who never concede are always right. I'm saying people who are always right never have to concede. From what I see, there are a lot of the latter.
But the way you are judging that "they already know it" is because they don't concede and insult you. How is that a good judge of truth?
Purple Knight wrote:If people are immersed in a group of people who all have this particular way of thinking and acting, they tend to follow it. Most people want to find truth. Most people try to discover truth and try to unravel lies.
Sure. I don't see how that helps us define "society," though. You said (post 41) that the moral high ground is the morality accepted by society as another reason to believe that you should act like those that insult you and don't concede that they are wrong. I'm questioning that "society" equates to those who insult and don't concede they are wrong, for one. I'm also questioning why society should be the standard at all.
Purple Knight wrote:It's easy if you simply define them all as irrational and emotional. I see it as morality.

Most people would get upset and angry if you kept asking questions such as, well, how do you know it was really the Nazis who were evil? We all know that. Questions are not generally tolerated.

I'm simply suggesting based on evidence that their apparent irrationality is the result of a higher morality wherein it's simply obvious that more things are evil.
And I don't think you are drawing a proper conclusion from the evidence you are sharing. I remain unconvinced by your reasoning from "people acting emotionally and irrationally" to "there is nothing more to morality than that."

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Post #50

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:Yes, I agree. But I think there are multiple versions of theism that are worthy of worship, if they were true. All we need are 2 versions to have theism's probability being higher than atheism's probability.
No no no no no. Two versions of theism satisfies my original question to the point where is is now more probable than atheism (...if there are no other factors...) fine. But not if there are three more versions of theism where you would say the god thereof is not God.

1. There is no creator
2. There is a creator and he's benevolent
3. There is a creator and he's malicious

Even if 1 sinks in a sea of other possibilities, the 3 sea outnumbers the 2 sea. See? There are far more ways for God to be nasty than nice, because he has to check no to a lot of boxes. And if the creator was nasty, you would say it was not really God and that atheism was true.
The Tanager wrote:Elisha in 2 Kings 8 is talking to the future king of Aram and weeps because he knows what he will do to the Israelites, including killing children and pregnant women. Psalm 137 ascribes this action to the Babylonians. Hosea 10 and 13 is about judgment coming on Israel and Samaria from others and includes children being killed. Nahum 3 possibly talks about the Assyrians doing this to other countries.
Even if your interpretation is spot on, a couple pregnant women and children is not equal to all the children and all the babies.
The Tanager wrote:But the way you are judging that "they already know it" is because they don't concede and insult you. How is that a good judge of truth?
Alright then. What do you suggest as a judge of moral truth? I have to look at people and how they react to each other. I have to look at which ones get praised and which ones get flamed into the ground.

Rationality? Seeing if I can find a contradiction? Following the most moral axioms (like tolerance)? I've tried all that. It leads me to horrible ideas that get me flamed into the ground by rational people because I'm saying horrible things like white people are equal, should be treated equally, and it's okay to be white.

I got this idea from the people crying for tolerance. They defended anyone who was beaten down or treated unfairly. I saw people being beaten down and treated unfairly. I acted on the axiom I was given, and it led me to say and think the worst things on the planet.

I want to discard those ideas and get with the respected ones.

Post Reply