Trickle-Down Morality

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Purple Knight
Scholar
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

Post #31

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:What evidence causes you to doubt this is even possible?
I doubt it because it's far enough removed from organisms we know are possible that I would really have to see a mega-entity before I believe one. I'm not saying anyone else is wrong for believing they're possible, this is really just personal preference.

What isn't personal preference is this: Suppose one exists. One of the virtually infinite gods proposed by humans exists. Let's say it's Allah (personally I judge this one likeliest of those I've heard of). What makes the difference to you between garden variety evil mega-entity pretending to be God, and actual God? If it's how the entity treats you, and you're female, you might conclude that this entity is "not God" even though it exists and has every power and quality the Qu'ran ascribes to it.

This is just personal preference again, but I would conclude that for almost every mega-entity I've heard of that humans believe is God. But I want to hear your opinion.
The Tanager wrote:But other human inventions, such as made-up stories, made-up creatures, etc. are still overwhelmingly logical versus illogical.
Well, they need to be, to pique our interest. My mind can't follow a completely illogical story. Even one with "minor" inconsistencies is not as good to me as one without.

Morality needs no polishing. It exists to be followed, whether we like it or not. Granted it would be easier to follow if it is logical, but it doesn't exist to be easy to follow either; it exists to be followed, whether it is easy or not. And clearly, it does not need to be made easier for us, or any and all moral dictates would simply be lifted whenever they became inconvenient. In fact, I would say it exists to be as difficult to follow as possible.
The Tanager wrote:Why side with the very few examples over the majority here, especially when you are all about following the majority in (1) logically possible ways to get a specific answer to a binary question and (2) what is moral?
Again, even if these people are the minority (and I don't think they are) I'm not just looking at 1st-tier survey results. I'm also looking at next-tier responses to those results. Inconsistent and right generates adulation and exaltation. "But, but, but that's a double standard!" generates only, "Lol whining racist retard go die in a ditch."

Well, I don't want to die in a ditch. Good attacks. Evil defends. I'm sick of defending. I want views that need no defence.
The Tanager wrote:Whatever my answer is to that, that is not a way for you to support your claim here. It is not relevant to my claim here. My claim here is that the number of people saying X doesn't support (a) or (b) more than the other. You claim it supports (a) over (b), so explain to me how it does so.
You're the one who said that what people make up is overwhelmingly logical over illogical. I simply assume the same of the people, leaving us with probably few instances of people simply being contradictory and many instances of people being correct. If it was as obviously fallacious as you seem to think, there would be more attacks. Low-hanging fruit.
The Tanager wrote:I think the only plausible reason for thinking murder is objectively wrong is if one believes God exists.
Then I assert that God's existence also proves that racism is wrong. Instead of consulting the majority, we should perhaps consult the Pope.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news ... ights.html
The Tanager wrote:So, since few people call out these prejudiced people...therefore...(a)? Why? Maybe they are cowards. Maybe they never have to deal with these issues. Maybe they think it such a small segment of the population that it's not worth even laughing at their claims.
Maybe, but that seems unlikely. If they're cowards, I'll ignore them until they speak out because that's all I can do. I doubt people simply don't have to deal with these issues, and it seems like the biggest (or at least, most influential) segment of the populace.
The Tanager wrote:No, it means that only those who are in power can be racist, whatever their race. The article was arguing that black people can't be racist because they don't have the power necessary to control society in prejudicial ways.
Right, only white people have that power, so only white people can be racist.
The Tanager wrote:But they don't get exalted. They do get refuted (or simply ignored). That's why when the people are confronted with the flat contradiction they correct their previous formulation or clarify how they were using specific terms.

Who actually maintains that Nazi and black supremacist ideologies are both bad and that you can punch a Nazi racist or a prejudiced Nazi because of that bad ideology, but not a Black racist or a prejudiced African-American in spite of their equally bad ideology in the same breath? It seems to me that you are taking bits and pieces of things and piecing together a claim that no one really makes. Even the punch a Nazi article doesn't make that claim. It only talks about the ethics of punching a Nazi. If the author was asked if you should punch a Black supremacist, then she would either say (1) yes, if it seeks the same deadly ends Nazism seeks or (2) no, because while she may disagree with it, it is not as dangerous as Nazism.
There is no one alive who believes that it is permissible to punch minorities for their ideology. That leaves (2) as the truth.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... ther-party

That means that encouraging violence against whites endangers no one.

...Which kind of suggests white people aren't people.

User avatar
The Tanager
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Post #32

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:I doubt it because it's far enough removed from organisms we know are possible that I would really have to see a mega-entity before I believe one. I'm not saying anyone else is wrong for believing they're possible, this is really just personal preference.
What do you mean by 'possible' here? We know a mega-entity is logically possible. Do you really mean that it's far enough removed from the beings that we know are actual?
Purple Knight wrote:What isn't personal preference is this: Suppose one exists. One of the virtually infinite gods proposed by humans exists. Let's say it's Allah (personally I judge this one likeliest of those I've heard of). What makes the difference to you between garden variety evil mega-entity pretending to be God, and actual God? If it's how the entity treats you, and you're female, you might conclude that this entity is "not God" even though it exists and has every power and quality the Qu'ran ascribes to it.

This is just personal preference again, but I would conclude that for almost every mega-entity I've heard of that humans believe is God. But I want to hear your opinion.
I'm having trouble understanding your question. Could you rephrase it?
Purple Knight wrote:Morality needs no polishing. It exists to be followed, whether we like it or not. Granted it would be easier to follow if it is logical, but it doesn't exist to be easy to follow either; it exists to be followed, whether it is easy or not. And clearly, it does not need to be made easier for us, or any and all moral dictates would simply be lifted whenever they became inconvenient. In fact, I would say it exists to be as difficult to follow as possible.
I largely agree.
Purple Knight wrote:
Purple Knight said: I'm now considering that logic might not apply to morality.
...
The Tanager said: What is it about morality that makes you treat it differently from the rest of reality, both objective and subjective realities?
Purple Knight said: Because morality, in a sense, doesn't exist. Morality is defined entirely by the human mind, and it is neither logic nor math, potentially dispensing with any requirement to be consistent.
The Tanager said: But other human inventions, such as made-up stories, made-up creatures, etc. are still overwhelmingly logical versus illogical. Why side with the very few examples over the majority here, especially when you are all about following the majority in (1) logically possible ways to get a specific answer to a binary question and (2) what is moral?
Again, even if these people are the minority (and I don't think they are) I'm not just looking at 1st-tier survey results. I'm also looking at next-tier responses to those results.
I think you are conflating two different arguments in this thread. My critique was in the specific context of you arguing that morality being a human invention gives us good reason to believe morality is illogical. I countered that most other human inventions are logical, so on this fact alone one should not conclude that morality is illogical but that it is logical. All I claim here is that human inventions other than morality are overwhelmingly logical.

Your response here, I think, refers back to what has been said about how people say one thing and then act in a different way regarding morality. I agree that people act inconsistently when it comes to ethics. Ultimately, I think we want to do what makes us feel good. Appearing logical to ourselves and to others makes us feel good because humans prize the logical. When confronted with acting in a way inconsistent with what we've previously claimed and doing what feels good, we often choose what feels good.

If we can feel good without thinking about things too hard, then we will do so and assume we are being logical all along even when we aren't being logical. When we get challenged and forced to think harder about it, we will usually try whatever it takes to make it appear that we were being logical all along. We want to eat our cake and have it too. We say our claim was misquoted, misunderstood, out of context, just ignore it and scream louder and insult our opponents, etc. We definitely don't like to admit we were previously wrong, but people don't usually openly praise inconsistency.

I think these actions actually show that we believe there is one standard for all. I think the universal initial human intuition is that there is one standard. I think it is perfectly rational to believe that our universal human intuitions are warranted until other defeaters come along. Atheism being true could be such a defeater but I think logic is on the side of theism over atheism.
Purple Knight wrote:Inconsistent and right generates adulation and exaltation. "But, but, but that's a double standard!" generates only, "Lol whining racist retard go die in a ditch."

Well, I don't want to die in a ditch. Good attacks. Evil defends. I'm sick of defending. I want views that need no defence.
You are obviously tired of talking with unrational people who hurl insults instead of arguments. But do you really think their stubbornness equals truth? I can understand wanting the desire to believe what you feel like without worrying about reason (I'm not saying this describes you or that it doesn't), but what would that have to do with truth?
Purple Knight wrote:
I think the only plausible reason for thinking murder is objectively wrong is if one believes God exists.
Then I assert that God's existence also proves that racism is wrong. Instead of consulting the majority, we should perhaps consult the Pope.
I'm not a Catholic but I agree with the Pope on this one. I would also make a stronger claim and say the only plausible reason for thinking racism is objectively wrong is God's existence.
Purple Knight wrote:Right, only white people have that power, so only white people can be racist.
Using the term in that specific way, then yes if only white people have the power necessary to control society in prejudicial ways, then only white people (at that moment) could be racist. I don't think the "if" is true, though. There are tons of societies. Many have white people largely in power. Others have systems that came about or were transformed by prejudiced white people in the past and have not been foundationally changed since then by those who now have the power. Others have non-whites in power. The non-whites that have power can be racist. Probably some are and some aren't.
Purple Knight wrote:There is no one alive who believes that it is permissible to punch minorities for their ideology. That leaves (2) as the truth.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... k-panther-...

That means that encouraging violence against whites endangers no one.

...Which kind of suggests white people aren't people.
I don't think it is permissible to punch anyone for their ideology alone. But if they act on their ideology or even against their ideology and try to commit violence on someone, then I think it is permissible to punch them (and more) regardless of their race. I'm not the only one either. I think you are reacting against a vocal minority and assuming it of others wrongly.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Scholar
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

Post #33

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:What do you mean by 'possible' here? We know a mega-entity is logically possible. Do you really mean that it's far enough removed from the beings that we know are actual?
We don't know it's possible. The sorts of powers ascribed to most entities termed God are hardly necessarily possible.
The Tanager wrote:I'm having trouble understanding your question. Could you rephrase it?
Let's say you meet one of these mega-entities. How do you decide whether it is God or a garden variety evil entity pretending to be God?
The Tanager wrote:I think you are conflating two different arguments in this thread. My critique was in the specific context of you arguing that morality being a human invention gives us good reason to believe morality is illogical. I countered that most other human inventions are logical, so on this fact alone one should not conclude that morality is illogical but that it is logical. All I claim here is that human inventions other than morality are overwhelmingly logical.
Human inventions other than morality are overwhelmingly logical, for a specific reason: To appeal to other humans. That reason doesn't apply to morality, and morality alone out of all human creations.

If fiction, or math, or art, could serve its intended purpose without being logical, there would be no reason to expend extra effort making it so.
The Tanager wrote:Your response here, I think, refers back to what has been said about how people say one thing and then act in a different way regarding morality. I agree that people act inconsistently when it comes to ethics. Ultimately, I think we want to do what makes us feel good. Appearing logical to ourselves and to others makes us feel good because humans prize the logical. When confronted with acting in a way inconsistent with what we've previously claimed and doing what feels good, we often choose what feels good.
That's true. Humans are also amazingly good at identifying when others do this, and they're great at policing each other, not just on morality. Usually the choice between what is logical based on one's goals and what feels good in the moment takes the form of instant gratification versus actually pursuing goals - the bucket of ice cream now, or exercise now and be skinny later. All humans correctly identify the bucket of ice cream as the wrong choice, even those who chose it.
The Tanager wrote:If we can feel good without thinking about things too hard, then we will do so and assume we are being logical all along even when we aren't being logical. When we get challenged and forced to think harder about it, we will usually try whatever it takes to make it appear that we were being logical all along. We want to eat our cake and have it too. We say our claim was misquoted, misunderstood, out of context, just ignore it and scream louder and insult our opponents, etc. We definitely don't like to admit we were previously wrong, but people don't usually openly praise inconsistency.
They don't praise inconsistency. Not openly.
The Tanager wrote:I think these actions actually show that we believe there is one standard for all. I think the universal initial human intuition is that there is one standard. I think it is perfectly rational to believe that our universal human intuitions are warranted until other defeaters come along. Atheism being true could be such a defeater but I think logic is on the side of theism over atheism.
Actually if theism is true, we at least know that the standard for God is different than the standard for humans. We know for a fact that I'm right, it's just a matter of which humans are bound by which standards. They could all happen to be bound by the same one but I doubt it.

I think it's more likely that the human desire of the lower is for the higher to be bound by the same morality as they are, but that the intuition of the higher is that they have to pretend they follow the same standard as the lower, but they know they're not actually bound by it.

I say it's more likely simply because of how adulated the higher always are. They are alphas, and the rest are omegas. They know it, you know it, I know it. But for the sake of society and law (that protects them the most) they pretend otherwise. The minute they admit they're really better than others, those others start trying to kill them, simply because it's the fastest way to equality: Kill those who are better. They're always comparatively very few.
The Tanager wrote:You are obviously tired of talking with unrational people who hurl insults instead of arguments. But do you really think their stubbornness equals truth?
Yes. It is the final truth that alone remains possible after I have eliminated everything else.
The Tanager wrote:I'm not a Catholic but I agree with the Pope on this one. I would also make a stronger claim and say the only plausible reason for thinking racism is objectively wrong is God's existence.
Then just pretend I'm one of those people who think God is the good in people and we agree absolutely.
The Tanager wrote:Using the term in that specific way, then yes if only white people have the power necessary to control society in prejudicial ways, then only white people (at that moment) could be racist. I don't think the "if" is true, though. There are tons of societies. Many have white people largely in power. Others have systems that came about or were transformed by prejudiced white people in the past and have not been foundationally changed since then by those who now have the power. Others have non-whites in power. The non-whites that have power can be racist. Probably some are and some aren't.
Well, the person I lost to in a debate said that what was happening in South Africa was not an example of black racism. They put the whites off their land, confiscated the land, had the power to do it, and it still wasn't racist.

You can argue that it's wrong (but, you would be wrong) but you can't even argue that it was racist.
The Tanager wrote:I don't think it is permissible to punch anyone for their ideology alone.
That makes you one of the set of all humans who believe that it is unacceptable to punch a black supremacist for their ideology alone.

There is only disagreement on what you can do to a white supremacist for his ideology alone.

If God is the good in people, then he says no to punching the black supremacist for his ideology, and maybe to punching a white supremacist for his. I'm not pasting together pieces of different arguments from different people; I'm looking at the purest good in people.

And as to the idea that nobody praises flat contradiction, well, you might want to look at this universally lauded infographic from Karl Popper.

For fun I'm posting the one where some racist, knuckle-dragging idiot thinks he has "destroyed" Popper's logic (which he can't do, because Popper is not attempting logic). Popper is using pure morality, and admitting the paradox. The "logic" doesn't apply equally to all things, and only a racist would think it was meant to.

Image

(In case this has been sized down too far to read...)

Popper: Should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?
Nazi: Yeah! Tolerate my ideas!
Popper: When we extend tolerance to those who are openly intolerant...
Hindenburg: Let's give Hitler a chance.
Popper: ...The tolerant ones end up being destroyed, and tolerance with them.
Any movement that preaches intolerance must be outside of the law. As paradoxical as it may seem, defending tolerance requires to not tolerate the intolerant.
(implied) ...And it only applies to Nazis.

The fool who thinks he has caught Popper relies on completely glossing over where Popper admits it's a paradox.

User avatar
The Tanager
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Post #34

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:We don't know it's possible. The sorts of powers ascribed to most entities termed God are hardly necessarily possible.
We are talking about being logically possible. That simply means looking at the characteristics the theist gives them and seeing if there is any logical contradiction. We can be as certain about this as we are about many things we call knowledge. Some theisms are illogical but many aren't.
Purple Knight wrote:
I'm having trouble understanding your question. Could you rephrase it?
Let's say you meet one of these mega-entities. How do you decide whether it is God or a garden variety evil entity pretending to be God?
Do you mean how to tell if it is the Creator of the world? How to tell if it is good? How to tell if it is the one that I give my allegiance to?
Purple Knight wrote:Actually if theism is true, we at least know that the standard for God is different than the standard for humans.
I'm hesitant to say that I fully agree because I'm not sure what all you mean in using the term of 'standard' but, in a sense, I do agree that God can perform actions that would be immoral for us to perform.
Purple Knight wrote:We know for a fact that I'm right, it's just a matter of which humans are bound by which standards. They could all happen to be bound by the same one but I doubt it.
That we are held to a standard that God isn't says nothing about whether different humans are held to the same standard or not.
Purple Knight wrote:
You are obviously tired of talking with unrational people who hurl insults instead of arguments. But do you really think their stubbornness equals truth?
Yes. It is the final truth that alone remains possible after I have eliminated everything else.
You haven't persuaded me (whether because your reasons aren't good or I'm missing the truth of them) to think everything else should be eliminated.
Purple Knight wrote:Well, the person I lost to in a debate said that what was happening in South Africa was not an example of black racism. They put the whites off their land, confiscated the land, had the power to do it, and it still wasn't racist.

You can argue that it's wrong (but, you would be wrong) but you can't even argue that it was racist.
If those in power are black and acting in a prejudiced way, then by definition they are racist. The disagreement probably moves to whether their actions are prejudicial. But just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are right. And just because they think you are wrong doesn't mean you are wrong. Just because they scream louder, that doesn't mean they are right.
Purple Knight wrote:That makes you one of the set of all humans who believe that it is unacceptable to punch a black supremacist for their ideology alone.

There is only disagreement on what you can do to a white supremacist for his ideology alone.

If God is the good in people, then he says no to punching the black supremacist for his ideology, and maybe to punching a white supremacist for his. I'm not pasting together pieces of different arguments from different people; I'm looking at the purest good in people.
You are taking what some people have said in one context and what others (or even the same person) said in another context and acted as though they addressed the same issue in both.
Purple Knight wrote:And as to the idea that nobody praises flat contradiction, well, you might want to look at this universally lauded infographic from Karl Popper.

...

The fool who thinks he has caught Popper relies on completely glossing over where Popper admits it's a paradox.
How is flat contradiction being praised here? The simplification ends up equivocating on terms. At times tolerance means tolerance-of-anything and at other times something more like tolerance-of-things-that-don't-harm.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Scholar
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

Post #35

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:We are talking about being logically possible. That simply means looking at the characteristics the theist gives them and seeing if there is any logical contradiction. We can be as certain about this as we are about many things we call knowledge. Some theisms are illogical but many aren't.
I won't bother with the rock-so-heavy-he-couldn't-lift-it thing because it's kind of a non-argument.

Anyway, I'm also considering that powers possessed by mega-entities might be scientifically impossible.

We have laws of physics. So far as we know, they always apply, at least on the macro level. That's incompatible with true omnipotence. In order for that not to be the case, we would have to live in an inherently chaotic universe, without laws (and in it anything would be possible, including God) and it would be a matter of God keeping order simply because it wants to.
The Tanager wrote:Do you mean how to tell if it is the Creator of the world? How to tell if it is good? How to tell if it is the one that I give my allegiance to?
All of these that are necessary for you to believe it's God and none that aren't.
The Tanager wrote:I'm hesitant to say that I fully agree because I'm not sure what all you mean in using the term of 'standard' but, in a sense, I do agree that God can perform actions that would be immoral for us to perform.
Well that is exactly what I mean by different standards: One entity does it, and it's right, whereas if another entity does the same thing, it's wrong.

The only way it wouldn't be a different standard is if knowledge makes the difference. For example, a time traveler who knows what he's about can kill baby Hitler, but that's different than a random person (or even a random time traveler) just whacking a random baby (I would argue, even if it happens to be Hitler).

But that leaves very smart people special privilege and I reject that as a legitimate reason for moral privilege. Smart people who think they know better (even if they do) are still wrong to impose their will on others. This is pretty universally agreed.
The Tanager wrote:That we are held to a standard that God isn't says nothing about whether different humans are held to the same standard or not.
At very least we know different standards are possible (in the way I've been using the term) because we know an example. If I've seen an example, I know it's possible. If not, I don't. This is a huge deal to me. I'm not sure why this confirmation of possibility isn't a huge deal to others.

I know flight is possible because I see a bird. Whether or not the Orville can get off the ground may still be unknown to me, but I would still see at least flight as confirmed to be possible. (This... is probably what I should say to avoid confusion.)
The Tanager wrote:You haven't persuaded me (whether because your reasons aren't good or I'm missing the truth of them) to think everything else should be eliminated.
You've noted that you think the other possibility is them being inconsistent and wrong. I reject that possibility because it's very easy for people to identify this and police each other, so I feel there would be more objection.

The other possibility is that there is no inconsistency and I simply don't understand the nuances of why putting white people off their land is not racist. I've been told this many times but usually people aren't willing to explain those nuances, flat out tell me I wouldn't understand, or give different reasons. I've heard that it is not okay for white people to be in Africa because black people were there first. I asked then, is it not okay for middle easterners to be in England because white people were there first? I was told that if I couldn't understand the difference, I was a knuckle-dragging moron who was pointless to talk to. I accept this as true, but I find it more likely that there is no significant difference and it's probably two standards.
The Tanager wrote:If those in power are black and acting in a prejudiced way, then by definition they are racist. The disagreement probably moves to whether their actions are prejudicial.
Oh, so putting white people off their land is simply not defined as prejudicial. I can accept that, just understand that the double standard has simply moved to the definition. I don't know why it's so difficult for your side to admit there are two standards. You would have no more opposition.
The Tanager wrote:But just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are right. And just because they think you are wrong doesn't mean you are wrong. Just because they scream louder, that doesn't mean they are right.
It's more that because they know they will be agreed with even when using insults that everyone but me already knows they are right. In fact, I know it too. I just often can't follow exactly how.

Maybe I've come up with "well, there are just two standards" out of desperation. But if this is really the only way I can understand the issue, why not at least admit it is as right as I can be?
The Tanager wrote:You are taking what some people have said in one context and what others (or even the same person) said in another context and acted as though they addressed the same issue in both.
I understand that punching a black supremacist for his ideology and punching a white supremacist for his ideology are different issues. Perhaps it's only my tendency toward racism that makes me want to see them as the same, especially if their ideology is exactly the same, with the [white] and [black] simply transposed. But this transposition is a difference, and should be treated as such. Do I have it right now?
The Tanager wrote:How is flat contradiction being praised here? The simplification ends up equivocating on terms. At times tolerance means tolerance-of-anything and at other times something more like tolerance-of-things-that-don't-harm.
Ah, correct. Nazis ideology harms. Muslim ideology does not. I failed to see this difference. This is the reason the fool who thinks he has caught Popper fails.

User avatar
The Tanager
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Post #36

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:Anyway, I'm also considering that powers possessed by mega-entities might be scientifically impossible.

We have laws of physics. So far as we know, they always apply, at least on the macro level. That's incompatible with true omnipotence. In order for that not to be the case, we would have to live in an inherently chaotic universe, without laws (and in it anything would be possible, including God) and it would be a matter of God keeping order simply because it wants to.
The laws of physics pertain to material objects. Many versions of theism involve God(s) being immaterial.
Purple Knight wrote:
Do you mean how to tell if it is the Creator of the world? How to tell if it is good? How to tell if it is the one that I give my allegiance to?
All of these that are necessary for you to believe it's God and none that aren't.
I'm sorry that I'm having so much trouble with understanding the issue(s) in your question. I think we have good reasons (that I will share if you want to go down that road) to believe that God exists and is at least:

1. Necessary
2. Uncaused
3. Timeless
4. Spaceless
5. Immaterial
6. Creator of the universe
7. Personal
8. One
9. Extremely powerful
10. Loving/Good
11. Desirous of a personal relationship with free creatures

Number 10 seems to distinguish whether God is good or bad in the abstract considerations but you seem to be asking if a 'mega-entity' came to me, how would I know that this specific being were God or some other mega-entity. If so, then we could know it's probably not God if we saw it contradict any of the above characteristics. If it does not, then I'm not sure it would matter that much since it would be acting as God would.

But perhaps I'm still misunderstanding your point?
Purple Knight wrote:At very least we know different standards are possible (in the way I've been using the term) because we know an example. If I've seen an example, I know it's possible. If not, I don't. This is a huge deal to me. I'm not sure why this confirmation of possibility isn't a huge deal to others.
This line reasoning began with assuming the truth of a theism where God can commit some actions that others would be immoral to commit. Assuming that as true, we know there are at least two "standards" in existence. But what accounts for that difference? Is it because we are different kinds of being? Is it because of some relationship of power? Is it something else?

The answer to that question is important if one wants to make further claims along the same line of reasoning. For instance, if us being a different kind of being than God is what results in a different standard, then we should conclude that only one standard exists for all humans since we are the same kind of being.
Purple Knight wrote:You've noted that you think the other possibility is them being inconsistent and wrong. I reject that possibility because it's very easy for people to identify this and police each other, so I feel there would be more objection.

The other possibility is that there is no inconsistency and I simply don't understand the nuances of why putting white people off their land is not racist. I've been told this many times but usually people aren't willing to explain those nuances, flat out tell me I wouldn't understand, or give different reasons. I've heard that it is not okay for white people to be in Africa because black people were there first. I asked then, is it not okay for middle easterners to be in England because white people were there first? I was told that if I couldn't understand the difference, I was a knuckle-dragging moron who was pointless to talk to. I accept this as true, but I find it more likely that there is no significant difference and it's probably two standards.
There are many people who would agree with you in the specifics. There are many people who disagree with you on the specifics. There are many people who have never thought about it at all. Both sides that have engaged are "stubborn" (I don't mean that perjoratively but descriptive of not changing their mind) in maintaining the truth of their beliefs. Yet you give up your stubbornness because they are stubborn? I don't get that.
Purple Knight wrote:It's more that because they know they will be agreed with even when using insults that everyone but me already knows they are right. In fact, I know it too. I just often can't follow exactly how.

Maybe I've come up with "well, there are just two standards" out of desperation. But if this is really the only way I can understand the issue, why not at least admit it is as right as I can be?
It sounds like you are saying that so many people have disagreed with your specific points and few to no one has agreed with you that, being a rational person, you think there must be something you are missing. But, if so, concluding that morality is not rational totally contradicts what caused you to think you were missing something in the first place.
Purple Knight wrote:Oh, so putting white people off their land is simply not defined as prejudicial. I can accept that, just understand that the double standard has simply moved to the definition. I don't know why it's so difficult for your side to admit there are two standards. You would have no more opposition.
First, I haven't taken a side on the issue. I don't know enough about it. I know some basic positions but have not investigated enough of the facts to see where I fall.

Second, I would be very surprised if your opponents did not really think they are logical and have the facts on their side while thinking that you either disagree with the facts or are being illogical. At least one of your two positions is wrong.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Scholar
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

Post #37

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:The laws of physics pertain to material objects. Many versions of theism involve God(s) being immaterial.
It still could not simply cause an apple to fall at a different speed than a bowling ball without some physical way of doing that.
The Tanager wrote:I'm sorry that I'm having so much trouble with understanding the issue(s) in your question. I think we have good reasons (that I will share if you want to go down that road) to believe that God exists and is at least:

1. Necessary
2. Uncaused
3. Timeless
4. Spaceless
5. Immaterial
6. Creator of the universe
7. Personal
8. One
9. Extremely powerful
10. Loving/Good
11. Desirous of a personal relationship with free creatures

Number 10 seems to distinguish whether God is good or bad in the abstract considerations but you seem to be asking if a 'mega-entity' came to me, how would I know that this specific being were God or some other mega-entity. If so, then we could know it's probably not God if we saw it contradict any of the above characteristics. If it does not, then I'm not sure it would matter that much since it would be acting as God would.
I very much get you and I think you understand better than you thought, since it's all about 10, more or less. So what would you do if you found out that mega-entities exist, and the one that created the universe and is all-powerful really, really, really likes to torture people? Also, it sends people to Hell if they don't cut off their daughters' vaginas.

Would you kowtow to it and accept that it really is God (modifying your concept somewhat) or would you reject it as God because you think it's not loving and good?

If you found out there was also a slightly less powerful mega-entity, but it was loving and good, and had most of the other qualities on the list (let's say he's a sort of second banana to the all-powerful one that created the universe) would you begin worshiping that one and call it God?

Or would you say that there was no God?
The Tanager wrote:This line reasoning began with assuming the truth of a theism where God can commit some actions that others would be immoral to commit. Assuming that as true, we know there are at least two "standards" in existence. But what accounts for that difference? Is it because we are different kinds of being? Is it because of some relationship of power? Is it something else?

The answer to that question is important if one wants to make further claims along the same line of reasoning. For instance, if us being a different kind of being than God is what results in a different standard, then we should conclude that only one standard exists for all humans since we are the same kind of being.
Some humans may then simply say, "I am a different kind of being called a good human. You are an evil human. My standard is more permissive because my acts are good and I can be trusted."

It can't just be categorisation. It would have to be some actual capability. But I can't think of a godlike quality which, when instilled in myself, would produce any different standard. I can even add qualities to myself from your list, one at a time, until I imagine that I am the same kind of entity as God, and ask myself at every stage whether I have grown beyond my original moral standard, and the answer at each juncture is no.

...Except maybe the one about being good. But then, that doesn't change the kind of being, does it?
The Tanager wrote:There are many people who would agree with you in the specifics. There are many people who disagree with you on the specifics. There are many people who have never thought about it at all. Both sides that have engaged are "stubborn" (I don't mean that perjoratively but descriptive of not changing their mind) in maintaining the truth of their beliefs. Yet you give up your stubbornness because they are stubborn? I don't get that.

It sounds like you are saying that so many people have disagreed with your specific points and few to no one has agreed with you that, being a rational person, you think there must be something you are missing. But, if so, concluding that morality is not rational totally contradicts what caused you to think you were missing something in the first place.
Correct. No one has ever agreed with me that putting white people off their land is the same morally as putting black people off their land, or that punching a white supremacist for his beliefs and punching a black supremacist for his identical (with the white and black transposed) beliefs are morally equivalent. They say I ignore context, even when I pose a hypothetical where the context is the same. They say hypotheticals don't matter, just reality, and in reality there is no situation where punching a black supremacist for his ideology is acceptable.

You've come close to agreeing with me, but I would like to see you argue that to the PC heavy hitters. I think they would wipe the floor with you. I don't think anyone on this forum could stand up to them.
The Tanager wrote:Second, I would be very surprised if your opponents did not really think they are logical and have the facts on their side while thinking that you either disagree with the facts or are being illogical. At least one of your two positions is wrong.
Mine is wrong. I've admitted that. I want to change my belief to theirs.

But I also want to be able to defend it logically if it is logical, or have people simply bow to superior morality if it is not logical.

Either suits me fine.

User avatar
The Tanager
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Post #38

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:
The laws of physics pertain to material objects. Many versions of theism involve God(s) being immaterial.
It still could not simply cause an apple to fall at a different speed than a bowling ball without some physical way of doing that.
I agree. But what does this have to do with the logical possibility of immaterial mega-entities?
Purple Knight wrote:So what would you do if you found out that mega-entities exist, and the one that created the universe and is all-powerful really, really, really likes to torture people? Also, it sends people to Hell if they don't cut off their daughters' vaginas.

Would you kowtow to it and accept that it really is God (modifying your concept somewhat) or would you reject it as God because you think it's not loving and good?

If you found out there was also a slightly less powerful mega-entity, but it was loving and good, and had most of the other qualities on the list (let's say he's a sort of second banana to the all-powerful one that created the universe) would you begin worshiping that one and call it God?

Or would you say that there was no God?
I would define god as "a being that is worthy of worship." So, I would not say that the all-powerful, torture-loving, creator is God. But that just seems like semantics to me. Do you have a deeper question than that from this line of reasoning?
Purple Knight wrote:Some humans may then simply say, "I am a different kind of being called a good human. You are an evil human. My standard is more permissive because my acts are good and I can be trusted."
But that doesn't necessarily mean there are actually two different kinds of human beings in the same way that God and humans are two different kinds of beings.
Purple Knight wrote:It can't just be categorisation. It would have to be some actual capability. But I can't think of a godlike quality which, when instilled in myself, would produce any different standard. I can even add qualities to myself from your list, one at a time, until I imagine that I am the same kind of entity as God, and ask myself at every stage whether I have grown beyond my original moral standard, and the answer at each juncture is no.

...Except maybe the one about being good. But then, that doesn't change the kind of being, does it?
I think the key distinction is being an uncaused creator. If it is uncaused, then nothing else decided what kind of being it is supposed to be. Nobody puts rules on it or designs how it will work best. The uncaused creator, however, decides what kind of creature(s) it will make. If it wants to create different beings with different rules for each one, that's the prerogative of the creator.
Purple Knight wrote:No one has ever agreed with me that putting white people off their land is the same morally as putting black people off their land, or that punching a white supremacist for his beliefs and punching a black supremacist for his identical (with the white and black transposed) beliefs are morally equivalent.
I agree with you.
Purple Knight wrote:They say I ignore context, even when I pose a hypothetical where the context is the same. They say hypotheticals don't matter, just reality, and in reality there is no situation where punching a black supremacist for his ideology is acceptable.
I would assume that some argue something like: putting people off land that they got through theft (even if the theft was by their ancestors, not them directly, or non-ancestors who sold the stolen land to them) and giving it to the original owners (or their physical descendents) is moral, while putting people off land that they didn't steal from anyone because you want the resources is immoral. They then say that what is being done to whites in South Africa right now is the former, while what was done to black farmers was the latter.

This kind of context (or possibly others) changes the situation from the one I agreed to above. I'm inclined to think there is a better way in South Africa then either extreme in the just stated context. But if the races were transposed in this new context my answer would be exactly the same. I think many of your opponents would say the same thing.
Purple Knight wrote:You've come close to agreeing with me, but I would like to see you argue that to the PC heavy hitters. I think they would wipe the floor with you. I don't think anyone on this forum could stand up to them.
I am willing to discuss any topic with anyone. I'm not sure, exactly, what you mean by saying people can't "stand up to them" or them "wiping the floor with me".
Purple Knight wrote:Mine is wrong. I've admitted that. I want to change my belief to theirs.

But I also want to be able to defend it logically if it is logical, or have people simply bow to superior morality if it is not logical.

Either suits me fine.
You say you want to change your belief to theirs, which I think you mean that you want to change your belief to be that whites are the only ones that can be racist. First, I'm not convinced they actually are saying that. Second, if they are actually saying that, then why do you want to change your belief to that? That would be a prejudicial belief or one based off of ignorance (that only whites can have power, for instance). Ignorant beliefs are not logically sound, and prejudicial beliefs, by definition are not logical. Nor have you given any good reason to believe that such beliefs are superior morally.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Scholar
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

Post #39

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:I agree. But what does this have to do with the logical possibility of immaterial mega-entities?
Well, it would mean that an all-powerful mega-entity (one that could case an apple and a bowling ball to fall at different speeds given identical conditions) would be a stretch.
The Tanager wrote:I would define god as "a being that is worthy of worship." So, I would not say that the all-powerful, torture-loving, creator is God. But that just seems like semantics to me. Do you have a deeper question than that from this line of reasoning?
No, only that most entertainably possible mega-entities are not God, so this is why I do not apply my likeliness argument to God, even if we concede that mega-entities are possible.
The Tanager wrote:But that doesn't necessarily mean there are actually two different kinds of human beings in the same way that God and humans are two different kinds of beings.
Right. That's why it can't just be categorisation.
The Tanager wrote:I think the key distinction is being an uncaused creator. If it is uncaused, then nothing else decided what kind of being it is supposed to be. Nobody puts rules on it or designs how it will work best. The uncaused creator, however, decides what kind of creature(s) it will make. If it wants to create different beings with different rules for each one, that's the prerogative of the creator.
That's exactly right. And we at least know that it is possible for it to be morally right for a Jew to kill a baby Amalekite. There are reasons, and they are good ones.

However, it is not right for me to kill a baby ever, no matter the reason. I could know for a certain fact that this baby will grow up to kill me and this could be my only time to get him and my only option and it would still be wrong.

We have just proved that if your God exists, so do multiple standards for humans.
The Tanager wrote:I would assume that some argue something like: putting people off land that they got through theft (even if the theft was by their ancestors, not them directly, or non-ancestors who sold the stolen land to them) and giving it to the original owners (or their physical descendents) is moral, while putting people off land that they didn't steal from anyone because you want the resources is immoral. They then say that what is being done to whites in South Africa right now is the former, while what was done to black farmers was the latter.
That's very clear, thank you. I agree with that. See how easy that is?

You have given me a leg to stand on so that I can explain my new beliefs instead of just repeatedly calling me ignorant and saying it would be pointless to explain.

I'm still not entirely sure how the matter applies to whites in Europe who are being displaced (but not stolen from) by nonwhite refugees, but I'm sure if you explain it to me clearly, I'll understand.
The Tanager wrote:But if the races were transposed in this new context my answer would be exactly the same. I think many of your opponents would say the same thing.
Actually I challenged people to think of a hypothetical situation where it would be okay to do the reverse and they just said it was a stupid question.
The Tanager wrote:I am willing to discuss any topic with anyone. I'm not sure, exactly, what you mean by saying people can't "stand up to them" or them "wiping the floor with me".
No one on this forum (in my opinion) could ever stand up to a debate with a politically correct leftist. You would lose that debate.
The Tanager wrote:You say you want to change your belief to theirs, which I think you mean that you want to change your belief to be that whites are the only ones that can be racist. First, I'm not convinced they actually are saying that. Second, if they are actually saying that, then why do you want to change your belief to that? That would be a prejudicial belief or one based off of ignorance (that only whites can have power, for instance). Ignorant beliefs are not logically sound, and prejudicial beliefs, by definition are not logical. Nor have you given any good reason to believe that such beliefs are superior morally.
I want whichever beliefs have the moral high ground. I have seen that it is anti-racist beliefs. I want those beliefs.

User avatar
The Tanager
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Post #40

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:Well, it would mean that an all-powerful mega-entity (one that could case an apple and a bowling ball to fall at different speeds given identical conditions) would be a stretch.
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.
Purple Knight wrote:
I would define god as "a being that is worthy of worship." So, I would not say that the all-powerful, torture-loving, creator is God. But that just seems like semantics to me. Do you have a deeper question than that from this line of reasoning?
No, only that most entertainably possible mega-entities are not God, so this is why I do not apply my likeliness argument to God, even if we concede that mega-entities are possible.
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?
Purple Knight wrote:That's exactly right. And we at least know that it is possible for it to be morally right for a Jew to kill a baby Amalekite. There are reasons, and they are good ones.

However, it is not right for me to kill a baby ever, no matter the reason. I could know for a certain fact that this baby will grow up to kill me and this could be my only time to get him and my only option and it would still be wrong.

We have just proved that if your God exists, so do multiple standards for humans.
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.
Purple Knight wrote:I'm still not entirely sure how the matter applies to whites in Europe who are being displaced (but not stolen from) by nonwhite refugees, but I'm sure if you explain it to me clearly, I'll understand.
I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to or if I would understand that issue clearly or if I understand the land issues in South Africa clearly for that matter. I have not read much or had in depth conversations on these matters.
Purple Knight wrote:Actually I challenged people to think of a hypothetical situation where it would be okay to do the reverse and they just said it was a stupid question.
Okay. But why think that this reaction makes them more moral?
Purple Knight wrote:No one on this forum (in my opinion) could ever stand up to a debate with a politically correct leftist. You would lose that debate.
What does it mean to lose a debate? At every debate both sides almost always claim victory for their side. It seems an useless concept.
Purple Knight wrote:I want whichever beliefs have the moral high ground. I have seen that it is anti-racist beliefs. I want those beliefs.
Why are they the moral high ground?

Post Reply