Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #3]

Do you prefer any of these options:

(a) a human society where every hurt individual was healed up by the human community
(b) a human society where most individuals seek to heal others, but there are some that are okay with harming others and not healing others if they think it serves their benefits best
(c) different human tribes where they look out for their own tribes' interests, but not others
(d) something else
(e) none

I'd prefer the first of the options you explained, but I might opt for something else, if a better option can be thought of, or even 'an idea society where everyone is treated fairly', but that's an ideal rather than an option.

But what was the point of your question anyway? It is fine and dandy to think up ideals of human society, but we are stuck with humans as they are, not how we'd prefer them to be.

[Replying to Difflugia in post #67]

What it does do, however, is make mind less magical, which I suspect might be your real beef.

You are incorrect in your suspicions.

Rather, I am more interested in it's importance as at least equal to that of matter. Clearly your belief has it that brains are more important, just as healthy teeth and correct spelling are. That is what I mean by "materialism unrealistically reduces mind to a position of lesser importance to the matter, than it actually is."

It is not a question of lesser importance. human morality, though it does not exist as material and is for sure an emergent property of matter, is one of the most important factors in human life. It is pointless to talk about which is more important much less turn it into some kind of protest against diminishing the importance of something that depended upon something else for its' emergence.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #66]

You are fre to clarify what your beliefs and theories are if I misundertand.

I am also free to observe the patterns involved in doing so with you in particular, as it does not produce anything other than strawman responses from you anyway.
If those strawman responses are simply you misunderstanding, then I am wasting my time even engaging with you (or anyone who does this) because the results of my efforts and clarifying are wasted, because you (predictably now) don't actually address what I am clarifying, but simply put your own spin on it...the very definition of strawmanning.

I am unconvinced that you misunderstand.

That just looks like evasion. Rather than set out clearly what your position is regarding a cosmic mind (God) or human mind (a material thing) as I invited as I'm asking rather than telling, you retreat behind the good old 'strawman' e,g "I do not mean that" evasion.

It is a well - known trick of theist apologetics to retreat behind a refusal to explain a position clearly so we can all know what we are discussing, and just say 'I do not mean that' to every attempt to get answers.

I don't even touch on the running away pretext of 'no point in even talking to you' which we have seen before. Evading being pinned down to explaining a position that can then come under question - the corrosive element to vulnerable faith -claims...such as sortagod or the Cosmic Mind.

The funny thing is that all such arguments are a waste of time because it is organised religions, their gods and holy Books, and their effect upon human society and life that matters, not a possible intelligent cosmos.

[The Tanager]

I'd prefer the first of the options you explained, but I might opt for something else, if a better option can be thought of, or even 'an idea society where everyone is treated fairly', but that's an ideal rather than an option.

But what was the point of your question anyway? It is fine and dandy to think up ideals of human society, but we are stuck with humans as they are, not how we'd prefer them to be.

As I said in post 11, I was trying to understand your position better. The confusion I have with any naturalist or atheist, is when they claim morality is subjective but then try to argue that some actions are actually good or evil, that is, better than others. If morality is subjective, then different moral actions are only different, with no real value distinction. People just have different preferences.

[Difflugia]

As I said in post 11, I was trying to understand your position better. The confusion I have with any naturalist or atheist, is when they claim morality is subjective but then try to argue that some actions are actually good or evil, that is, better than others. If morality is subjective, then different moral actions are only different, with no real value distinction. People just have different preferences.

I tried discussing this with you once before. The problem is that you're defining "subjective" and "objective" in ways that don't really make sense, let alone match how philosophers define them. When philosophers discuss objective morality, it means that we can define a set of rules such that morality isn't determined by things like social circumstances. If slavery is wrong, for example, because it is wrong to deny another of agency, then that's an objective standard. If slavery is wrong because we as a society have decided that it's wrong, but it wasn't wrong within the Roman Empire, then that's a subjective standard.

Your argument is that morality is objective because somebody that isn't human has decreed what is moral and immoral. From a philosophical perspective, you're just pushing the subjectivity onto a putative god. That may be important in a practical sense (the gods will inconvenience me if I disobey), but it's not in a philosophical sense. If I claim that Winnie the Pooh is the final arbiter of morality rather than humanity at large, that has exactly the same sense of objectivity that you're using for your argument and exactly the same philosophical problem. There's no set of objective principles in either case from which we can define our morality, but rather the claimed decree of, in one case, a cartoon character and in the other, Winnie the Pooh.

Reasonable people can disagree about the principles behind an objective morality and that is a subjective process. Claiming that gods are super big and powerful doesn't somehow make their decrees objective in the same sense, even if we believe that the priests are speaking directly for them. You're just claiming that your rules are objective because your dad can beat up my dad.

And you might be an orphan.

[The Tanager]

I tried discussing this with you once before. The problem is that you're defining "subjective" and "objective" in ways that don't really make sense, let alone match how philosophers define them. When philosophers discuss objective morality, it means that we can define a set of rules such that morality isn't determined by things like social circumstances. If slavery is wrong, for example, because it is wrong to deny another of agency, then that's an objective standard. If slavery is wrong because we as a society have decided that it's wrong, but it wasn't wrong within the Roman Empire, then that's a subjective standard.

What have I said that makes you think I don’t mean objective and subjective in this way, because it sounds good to me.

Your argument is that morality is objective because somebody that isn't human has decreed what is moral and immoral. From a philosophical perspective, you're just pushing the subjectivity onto a putative god. That may be important in a practical sense (the gods will inconvenience me if I disobey), but it's not in a philosophical sense. If I claim that Winnie the Pooh is the final arbiter of morality rather than humanity at large, that has exactly the same sense of objectivity that you're using for your argument and exactly the same philosophical problem. There's no set of objective principles in either case from which we can define our morality, but rather the claimed decree of, in one case, a cartoon character and in the other, Winnie the Pooh.

Let’s make sure we are understanding each other. Assume that God is responsible for the physical shape of the earth being an objective fact of reality. Would you say that physical shape is objective because someone who isn’t human decreed it to be so? Would that be an accurate phrasing or do you mean something else by “somebody that isn’t human has decreed what is moral and immoral”?

Reasonable people can disagree about the principles behind an objective morality and that is a subjective process. Claiming that gods are super big and powerful doesn't somehow make their decrees objective in the same sense, even if we believe that the priests are speaking directly for them. You're just claiming that your rules are objective because your dad can beat up my dad.

And you might be an orphan.

I have never claimed that God being super big and powerful is what makes His decrees about morality objective. Help me see why you think I mean that because that is a complete misunderstanding.

[Difflugia]

What have I said that makes you think I don’t mean objective and subjective in this way, because it sounds good to me.

Because you're the one that keeps trying to define anything atheistic or naturalistic as subjective:

As a theist, I don’t ground morality in God’s decree as a decree, but in the act of creation that gives us a specific nature which includes an objective purpose to be moral agents. How do you see an atheistic worldview giving us objective purpose or some other way to get overall objectivity?

Morality is about ‘oughts’, right? The murderer often believes that this is what they ought to do. We disagree. Why, on your view, are they worse than us?

[...]

My claim has been that, on atheism, morality would be subjective. This is what you just described. So why are you disagreeing with me in the rest of this by trying to say that atheism can give us objective morality as well?

What do you mean by morality (good and evil)? I think objective good and evil can’t be gained from a natural basis, but subjective preferences can certainly be gained from a natural basis. But calling subjective preferences good/evil or right/wrong is completely unhelpful.

If I claim that slavery is wrong and always has been so because denying someone their freedom is wrong, then that's an objective standard. You can claim it's not a good one, but it's objective and doesn't require anything supernatural. Instead, you appear to be claiming that it can only be considered objective if it was an "act of creation" or there's somebody to arbitrate between a standard and someone "[believing] this is what they ought to do."

Let’s make sure we are understanding each other. Assume that God is responsible for the physical shape of the earth being an objective fact of reality.

Yes.

Would you say that physical shape is objective because someone who isn’t human decreed it to be so?

No.

Would that be an accurate phrasing or do you mean something else by “somebody that isn’t human has decreed what is moral and immoral”?

That's accurate. But if you also believe that's true, then we don't need to "ground" morality in a supernatural view of the universe any more than we need to "ground" the objective shape of the Earth in one.

I have never claimed that God being super big and powerful is what makes His decrees about morality objective. Help me see why you think I mean that because that is a complete misunderstanding.

My understanding of what you're saying is that "slavery is wrong because it's wrong to deny someone agency" is objective if God says it, but subjective if I say it. Did I misunderstand that?

For the record, if we equate Paul's view of sin with morality, then his morality is subjective in the philosophical sense:

But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Do you disagree with me?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #66]

You are fre to clarify what your beliefs and theories are if I misundertand.

I am also free to observe the patterns involved in doing so with you in particular, as it does not produce anything other than strawman responses from you anyway.
If those strawman responses are simply you misunderstanding, then I am wasting my time even engaging with you (or anyone who does this) because the results of my efforts and clarifying are wasted, because you (predictably now) don't actually address what I am clarifying, but simply put your own spin on it...the very definition of strawmanning.

I am unconvinced that you misunderstand.

Still the old therist fallacies and evasions like calling anything that doesn't suit yoy 'strawman', refusing to explain and running away, frankly, with a final accusation you hope wil cover your failure.

Trashtalk aside I look back at what we posted
You are incorrect in your suspicions.

You posted Rather, I am more interested in it's importance as at least equal to that of matter. Clearly your belief has it that brains are more important, just as healthy teeth and correct spelling are. That is what I mean by "materialism unrealistically reduces mind to a position of lesser importance to the matter, than it actually is."
And I responded.:It is not a question of lesser importance. human morality, though it does not exist as material and is for sure an emergent property of matter, is one of the most important factors in human life. It is pointless to talk about which is more important much less turn it into some kind of protest against diminishing the importance of something that depended upon something else for its' emergence.



We know what's going on here, and i don't care about your denial, this is for those with minds still open. A Theist truck is to pretend that reducing human and material reality to just physics and mechanics is somehow belittling what should be godly and wonderful.

Whereas it can be argued that amazing nature is belittled by making up fairy stories about it when there are better explanations.
How is this strawman? Rather it is you being unable to respond in any meaningful way....let's be clear, it is a claim for an intelliigent Cosmos, vs. skeptics saying 'prove it' which Theism is NEVER able to do, and smokescreening with accusations and evasions. I know you are better than this and deserve better than this, but Theism is Faithbased, and - regrettably - human gey Bad when their faith is seriously threatened.

[The Tanager]

If I claim that slavery is wrong and always has been so because denying someone their freedom is wrong, then that's an objective standard. You can claim it's not a good one, but it's objective and doesn't require anything supernatural.

It’s an objective standard, but you haven’t shown how that standard came to be. Anyone can say “X is objectively true,” but you need to show how it follows from the beliefs within a naturalistic worldview.

Instead, you appear to be claiming that it can only be considered objective if it was an "act of creation" or there's somebody to arbitrate between a standard and someone "[believing] this is what they ought to do."

I’m saying let’s analyze the ways people talk about getting from point A to morality being objective (without saying anything about if that way is actually true, since that is a separate, although related, question).

(1) Someone exists that can arbitrate between two people who disagree?

This does not get us objective morality; it just adds a number to one view or brings in a third view with no standard for judging between them since ‘majority’ is not a good test of truth.

(2) Something creates humans with a specific nature and purpose?

Yes, if this occurred, then it would give us objective morality.

(3) ???

There could be other ways and I’m ready to see them, but none have been offered. Naturalism doesn’t fit in (2) because while there is a specific nature, there is no purpose.

Let’s make sure we are understanding each other. Assume that God is responsible for the physical shape of the earth being an objective fact of reality.

Yes

Would you say that physical shape is objective because someone who isn’t human decreed it to be so?

No.

Would that be an accurate phrasing or do you mean something else by “somebody that isn’t human has decreed what is moral and immoral”?

That's accurate. But if you also believe that's true, then we don't need to "ground" morality in a supernatural view of the universe any more than we need to "ground" the objective shape of the Earth in one.

Okay, I need to clarify something. When you said “No,” did you mean you wouldn’t use the phrase, but (from the third bit) it would still be an accurate one to use if one were so inclined?

Or something else? Perhaps that I was asking about two different phrasings?

If the first, then we need to take note of the difference between physical shape and morality. Physical shape is only about what is, not about what should be. Morality (as a larger field) talks both about how people act and how people should act.

My understanding of what you're saying is that "slavery is wrong because it's wrong to deny someone agency" is objective if God says it, but subjective if I say it. Did I misunderstand that?

Yes, at least in a nuanced way with the language used. The key here is why the goal/purpose should be honoring someone’s agency. What makes that the goal humans should strive for? God can build that into what it means to be a human through his act of creation. I don’t see how naturalism can build that purpose into us.

For the record, if we equate Paul's view of sin with morality, then his morality is subjective in the philosophical sense:

But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.(Rom 14:23)

Do you disagree with me?

I'm not sure we should equate the two here. Paul seems to be saying that if someone thinks what they are doing is wrong or could be wrong, that they shouldn’t do it. She should err on the side of caution.

But if we did equate them, this would be the same for everyone; it would be an objective moral rule.

[TRANSPONDER]

Wrong as usual. Faithclaims about a god (nasme your own, anyway) carry no weight, and what innate values we have make more sense in terms of instinct and social training, which is as we know not too perfect which is why religion has to come up with sin and disobedience and mans' fall (taking down the rest of creation so it all had to be destroyed) and various excuses as to why God didn't make sure it didn't happen.

Bottom line, it is not about what you and fellow Believers can faithclaim or deny, but about the case that can be made, to persuade the undecided voter, never mind atheists and deconverts who have already seen through these poor apologetics.

Bottom line of the bottom line. Everything's Bottoms, isn't it?



The morality argument failed in the 8o's, and yet they keep using it, dressed up to look different. But it is still the same failed apologetic.

[Difflugia]

It’s an objective standard, but you haven’t shown how that standard came to be. Anyone can say “X is objectively true,” but you need to show how it follows from the beliefs within a naturalistic worldview.

I don't have to prove that for the objective vs. subjective discussion and that was the point of using an example that I already said was oversimplified.

The conversation for which I have to prove that my objective standard is a good one is the same conversation where you prove that gods are real. We're not there, yet.

(2) Something creates humans with a specific nature and purpose?

Yes, if this occurred, then it would give us objective morality.

You're still equivocating between two meanings of "objective." If gods are real, then they could be an objective source for morality, but that doesn't get you an objective standard for morality. We're discussing the latter, not the former.

Okay, I need to clarify something. When you said “No,” did you mean you wouldn’t use the phrase, but (from the third bit) it would still be an accurate one to use if one were so inclined?

No. The shape of the Earth isn't an objective fact because a god decreed it. Both may simultaneously true, but the former isn't predicated on the latter.

My understanding of what you're saying is that "slavery is wrong because it's wrong to deny someone agency" is objective if God says it, but subjective if I say it. Did I misunderstand that?

Yes, at least in a nuanced way with the language used.

Then we're not using the phrase "objective morality" the same way.

The key here is why the goal/purpose should be honoring someone’s agency. What makes that the goal humans should strive for? God can build that into what it means to be a human through his act of creation. I don’t see how naturalism can build that purpose into us.

The "why" is a different argument, but even so, if it's there, it's there whether a god put it there or not. If you can find some sort of evidence for that in "creation," then its existence is just as much a part of any naturalistic construction. If you don't have any evidence for it, then it's just made up.

I'm not sure we should equate the two here. Paul seems to be saying that if someone thinks what they are doing is wrong or could be wrong, that they shouldn’t do it. She should err on the side of caution.

That's the "subjective" part of a subjective morality.

But if we did equate them, this would be the same for everyone; it would be an objective moral rule.

That's not what "objective" means in "objective morality." If what someone thinks is wrong is part of the calculus, then by definition it's not an objective morality. "It's wrong if your cultural milieu says it's wrong," isn't part of an objective morality even if the rule is "the same" for all cultures and all people.

Moral realism