Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

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

[William]

Artificial Intelligence lacks the capacity to grasp the importance of social behavior norms. Comprehending specific realities involves intuitive elements and experiences that machines simply cannot have.

Therefore, the comments generated by these automated programs, even when slightly altered by humans, fail to objectively depict real phenomena. "The truth is out there", ... in the surroundings where real individuals interact.

Interactions with such IA-posts are generally unproductive and impractical. It is foreseeable that these "AI-conclusions" often have a negative impact in real-life situations.

In this case, the critique was not merely generated by AI but was co-created, with substantial input from me. My human insights, experiences, and reasoning shaped the ideas and language used to present the critique. AI assisted in organizing and refining the expression of these ideas, but it was still fundamentally a product of human thought.

By dismissing the critique based on AI's involvement, you are not just dismissing the technology but also my own contribution and the valid points I’ve raised. The argument about AI's limitations is being used as an excuse not to engage with the critique, which reflects both human and machine collaboration. In doing so, you're sidestepping the substance of the critique itself, which remains valid regardless of the method used to present it.

This is akin to refusing to listen to a mathematician’s conclusions simply because they used a calculator. The calculator is just a tool to assist in solving a problem, but it’s the mathematician’s reasoning and understanding that leads to the correct answer. Similarly, AI was simply a tool in this process, but the core of the critique—its logic and observations—stems from my own reasoning. Dismissing it because of the involvement of AI is a deflection from engaging with the actual content of the critique.

The real issue here is not whether AI was involved in formulating the critique but whether the critique's observations are accurate. Simply dismissing it without engaging is a form of avoidance rather than addressing the real points made.

[Bible_Student]

Artificial Intelligence lacks the capacity to grasp the importance of social behavior norms. Comprehending specific realities involves intuitive elements and experiences that machines simply cannot have.

Therefore, the comments generated by these automated programs, even when slightly altered by humans, fail to objectively depict real phenomena. "The truth is out there", ... in the surroundings where real individuals interact.

Interactions with such IA-posts are generally unproductive and impractical. It is foreseeable that these "AI-conclusions" often have a negative impact in real-life situations.

In this case, the critique was not merely generated by AI but was co-created, with substantial input from me. My human insights, experiences, and reasoning shaped the ideas and language used to present the critique. AI assisted in organizing and refining the expression of these ideas, but it was still fundamentally a product of human thought.

By dismissing the critique based on AI's involvement, you are not just dismissing the technology but also my own contribution and the valid points I’ve raised. The argument about AI's limitations is being used as an excuse not to engage with the critique, which reflects both human and machine collaboration. In doing so, you're sidestepping the substance of the critique itself, which remains valid regardless of the method used to present it.

This is akin to refusing to listen to a mathematician’s conclusions simply because they used a calculator. The calculator is just a tool to assist in solving a problem, but it’s the mathematician’s reasoning and understanding that leads to the correct answer. Similarly, AI was simply a tool in this process, but the core of the critique—its logic and observations—stems from my own reasoning. Dismissing it because of the involvement of AI is a deflection from engaging with the actual content of the critique.

The real issue here is not whether AI was involved in formulating the critique but whether the critique's observations are accurate. Simply dismissing it without engaging is a form of avoidance rather than addressing the real points made.

FYI, I am not opposed to the use of technology. My earlier remark specifically addresses concerns regarding moral/ethics and human conduct. Your critique on my remark perfectly illustrates my previous point. Much appreciated.

[William]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #132]

Noted. However, if you have nothing further to add regarding the topic under discussion, your opinion on the use of AI seems besides the point in this context. The focus of our conversation is not on how the critique was generated but on the ideas and arguments presented.

I understand that you may have reservations about AI’s role in shaping certain conclusions, particularly in ethical and moral matters. Still, I understand the primary concern should be whether the content of the critique is logically sound and addresses the core issues being discussed. Dismissing the insights due to AI’s involvement doesn’t engage with the validity of the points made.

In this case, the critique’s substance, its reasoning, and the ideas presented should be the focus of our engagement. If you have thoughts or counterpoints on the actual arguments being made, I’d be happy to hear them and continue the discussion based on the merits of the ideas themselves, regardless of how those ideas were formulated.

[Bible_Student]

Taking out all the AI verbiage this is left:

...I’d be happy to hear them and continue the discussion based on the merits of the ideas themselves, regardless of how those ideas were formulated.

And here was what you're asking for again:

IMHO, morality, understood as the set of principles or rules governing the actions of individuals and human societies, is objective.

Everything that exists must adhere to specific guidelines, not due to a presumed mechanical "law of survival of any species," but to function effectively on a day-to-day basis. Moral rules, when not derived from past teachings or experiences, must be consciously uncovered to ensure proper functioning.

I liken it to the manual for an electronic gadget. Ignoring the manufacturer's guidelines will lead to its damage.

"Divine instructions" represent the "morality" that a follower of a deity who demands specific behaviors, must adhere to. Human laws, even if merely human agreements, mirror the collective human morality derived from the past and inevitably align with "divine" commands that dictated the behavior of all historical human communities in their origin.

Thus, from this perspective, morality is objective. It exists independently of individual awareness and is rooted in the fragility inherent in all material entities.

So, the answer to your question here

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

is: yes, since "morality" is inherent to human consciousness contrary to animal instincts.

[The Tanager]

1. The criterion of "realized in an act of creation" does nothing to make a god's subjective opinion of how humans ought to behave into an objective morality that transcends the subjectivity problem. This proprietary definition of "objective" only applies in your argument for an objective morality that is functionally equivalent to what is otherwise understood to be just another version of subjective morality. Because the only difference between an objective morality and a subjective morality in the argument is the source of the personal opinion about how humanity ought to behave, it doesn't logically follow that the version of objective morality offered by Christian theism resolves any of the objections it has with subjective morality. It is a distinction without a difference. If Christian theism is true and your proprietary definition of "objective" is granted, it still wouldn't be necessarily good to act in accordance with an objective moral law because the concept of "good" is subjective. Of course, you could apply your proprietary definition of "objective" to the concept of "good" to define "objectively good" as the quality of being in accordance with objective morality, but it wouldn't logically follow that humanity ought to be objectively good either. So, the entire semantic exercise seems to be pointless.

First, my definition is not “proprietary”, if you mean that it is my own. It is what is most commonly used in the traditional philosophical discussion on this issue.

Second, the difference is not about the being having the opinion. That’s a misunderstanding that I’ve addressed multiple times in ways that you haven’t addressed. The difference is not that a different being looks at reality and simply holds a different opinion. The difference is that one being (God) created nature in such a way that logically leads to objective morality, while the other beings (humans) did not do such a thing.

Third, your separation of “it is morally good to” as a distinct concept from “one morally ought to do X” is unwarranted. They are just two ways to say the same thing. That is a distinction without a difference.

2. I will charitably presume that you didn't intend to contradict yourself when you stated that a god's subjective opinion realized in an act of creation is one way to objectively ground morality while a god's subjective opinion realized in an act of creation also produces a subjective morality. So, feel free to provide a correction in your response to this post.

While I appreciate philosophical charity, you are misunderstanding what I’ve said. I’ve said some forms of theism (if true) would lead to objective morality, while other forms of theism (if true) would lead to subjective morality.

For instance, Descartes (if I remember correctly) asserted that God could change his moral declarations and that it would then become moral to, say, abuse a child by God’s fiat alone. If morality is based in God’s fiat alone, then it would be subjective. My view differs in that God’s fiat makes something to be a certain way that, even if God changed His mind about what humans should do, it would be too late to change the objective morality.

[The Tanager]

No (To Tam's argument above) . I think that is mistaken. Morality cannot be regarded as objective, unless you can show that it exists as a sort of independent law or rule, quite apart from what humans or even gods, think about it.

You simply aren’t using ‘objective’ in the way the philosophical discussion around this issue has used it.

[bluegreenearth]

The difference is that one being (God) created nature in such a way that logically leads to objective morality, while the other beings (humans) did not do such a thing.

What is the non-tautological and non-special pleading argument for asserting a god could create nature in such a way to logically lead towards an objective morality that transcend the subjectivity problems associated with other moral systems?

[William]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #134]

"morality" is inherent to human consciousness

What do you mean by "morality"?

What evidence do you have to support that this is "inherent to human consciousness"?

[TRANSPONDER]

No (To Tam's argument above) . I think that is mistaken. Morality cannot be regarded as objective, unless you can show that it exists as a sort of independent law or rule, quite apart from what humans or even gods, think about it.

You simply aren’t using ‘objective’ in the way the philosophical discussion around this issue has used it.

You mean using it correctly? I have a problem with philosophy in discussions of practical matters. Just one example; metaphysical materialism or the philosophical term, means a claim that nothing but the material can exist. No doubt according to philosophy rules that is a debate standpoint but in practical terms it is logically unteable.

What is worse is that 'Philosophy' in religious discussion often turns out to be sophistry, if not semantic fiddling and false arguments.

So I'd say i am using the term correctly as a practical term based on the evidence and not as - say - objective because all humans seem to agree on it.

[The Tanager]

What is the non-tautological and non-special pleading argument for asserting a god could create nature in such a way to logically lead towards an objective morality that transcend the subjectivity problems associated with other moral systems?

P1. If X can create beings with an objective nature (to where certain actions damage them physically, emotionally, etc.) and an objective purpose (to where they are designed to pursue the good of themselves and others), then that is enough to lead to objective morality (to where such a created being does good by committing or refraining from certain actions).

P2. There are some theisms where, if true, God is such an X.

P3. Therefore, there are some theisms that have enough to lead to objective morality.