Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

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

[The Tanager]

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.

One great danger comes when one thinks they aren’t using any philosophy. Everybody in this discussion is continually using philosophy. You can’t escape it. You use it in your metaphysical materialism example. To show that “philosophy in religious discussion often turns out to be sophistry,” you’d have to use philosophy. You’ve entered into the philosophical discussion here, gotten the key terms wrong, and then are critiquing the philosophical discussion based off of that complete equivocation.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

One great danger comes when one thinks they aren’t using any philosophy. Everybody in this discussion is continually using philosophy. You can’t escape it. You use it in your metaphysical materialism example. To show that “philosophy in religious discussion often turns out to be sophistry,” you’d have to use philosophy. You’ve entered into the philosophical discussion here, gotten the key terms wrong, and then are critiquing the philosophical discussion based off of that complete equivocation.

But in a post I replied to just now you complained that you were talking Philosophy, not epistemology, so you make a distinction yourself.

Of course, the term 'philosophy' can be used broadly (I recall the word means love of knowledge) and i have noticed that philosophical definitions (e.g materialism) are definitions that seem to be inherently unsound). I thus am very suspicious of the use of "Philosophy" in Theistic discussion, because it so often tyurns out to be Sophistry, such as tossing word - salads, semantic fiddling ore trying to dismiss logic and scientifically validated evidence when it undermines the religious argument.

The theist apologist can do this of course, but I'll continue to call them on it if they do it,

[bluegreenearth]

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).

First of all, P1 is itself an argument with premises and a conclusion:

• P1a. Beings can be created with an objective nature (to where certain actions damage them physically, emotionally, etc.).

• P1b. Beings can be created with an objective purpose (to where they are designed to pursue the good of themselves and others).

• P1c. Beings can be created with both an objective nature and an objective purpose.

• Conclusion. The creation of beings with an objective nature and objective purpose leads to objective morality (to where such created beings do good by committing or refraining from certain actions).

It is understood from P1a that created beings who were designed to exhibit the same type of damage in response to a certain type of action do not have the option to exhibit no damage or a different type of damage in response to that action. For example, every human who was designed to bleed a lot when cut deeply with a sharp knife would not be expected to exhibit no bleeding should that action occur because it is their objective nature to bleed a lot under those prescribed conditions. The logical converse would be a subjective nature where, in the same example, humans are designed with the option to bleed a lot, bleed a little, or not bleed at all when cut deeply with a sharp knife. If such a variety of outcomes were observed, it would not be coherent to argue that humans were designed to have a single objective nature to bleed a lot when cut deeply with a knife.

When this understanding of "objective" is consistently applied for coherency, it logically follows from the description of "objective purpose" in P1b that created beings must only have the capability to pursue the good of themselves and others because that is the outcome the argument requires to avoid equivocating on the meaning of objective. The logical converse would be a subjective purpose where created beings are designed with the option to pursue any number of purposes. If such a variety of purposes are observed, then it is incoherent to argue that a single objective purpose exists given the consistent understanding and application of the adjective "objective."

P1c is just the combination of P1a and P1b. For example, beings designed with the nature to die in environments with no breathable air and designed to have the purpose of pursuing a long life are created with an objective nature and an objective purpose according to the argument. The consistent understanding and application of the adjective "objective" means those created beings do not have the option to not die in environments with no breathable air and do not have the option to pursue anything other than a long life.

The conclusion of the argument is that these conditions are sufficient to derive an objective morality where the created beings are only capable of taking "good" actions to remain alive in environments where the air is breathable and are incapable of taking "bad" actions that result in death by drowning. The logical converse would be a subjective morality where created beings are designed with the option to take the action of remaining alive in environments where the air is breathable or to take actions that result in their death by drowning or any other method of asphyxiation. If those created beings are observed to have the capability of taking such a variety of moral actions, then it is incoherent to argue that a single objective morality exists for them. This is how the adjective "objective" in the term "objective morality" must be understood for the argument to avoid equivocating on its meaning.

[The Tanager]

But in a post I replied to just now you complained that you were talking Philosophy, not epistemology, so you make a distinction yourself.

No, I claimed I was talking ontology, not epistemology. Both are philosophy.

Of course, the term 'philosophy' can be used broadly (I recall the word means love of knowledge) and i have noticed that philosophical definitions (e.g materialism) are definitions that seem to be inherently unsound).

If any definition I’ve used is unsound, then show it and I can respond.

I thus am very suspicious of the use of "Philosophy" in Theistic discussion, because it so often tyurns out to be Sophistry, such as tossing word - salads, semantic fiddling ore trying to dismiss logic and scientifically validated evidence when it undermines the religious argument.

There is also bad science out there, but that doesn’t mean we chuck out all scientific claims from the discussion. No, we should do good science when doing science. We should also do good philosophy when doing philosophy. You can’t escape it or paint views that disagree with you as “Philosophy” as though you aren’t also doing philosophy. It comes down to the actual arguments made.

[The Tanager]

First of all, P1 is itself an argument with premises and a conclusion:

No, premise 1 is a hypothetical statement. The statement does include parts, like you’ve delineated. But the deeper point you might be trying to get at is that these parts have arguments behind them that aren’t officially stated. I agree. The same is true of P2 (although you probably don’t disagree with the conclusion, so you didn’t think about that premise). This is what must be done in philosophical discussions to see where people disagree so that exploration can be done in the most helpful manner.

When this understanding of "objective" is consistently applied for coherency, it logically follows from the description of "objective purpose" in P1b that created beings must only have the capability to pursue the good of themselves and others because that is the outcome the argument requires to avoid equivocating on the meaning of objective.

Only if the understanding exhibited was correct. But your example caused you to narrow the meaning of ‘objective’ by including an additional concept: that humans could not do otherwise. You’ve smuggled in the question of free will into the definition with no reason offered for doing so.

There is nothing in the definition of ‘objective’ (something like “independent of the opinions of the agents it is being applied to”) that conflicts with the agents it is being applied to having the freedom to go along with that standard or not. A proper definition of ‘objective’ is neutral to other questions like whether agents have freedom or not.

[Bible_Student]

[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"?

To me, "morality" means understanding the difference between right and wrong and having the inclination to opt for the right and avoid the wrong.

This trait is intrinsic to humans, as making choices based on individual assessments of right and wrong requires a brain capable of advanced cognitive functions.

[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"?

To me, "morality" means understanding the difference between right and wrong and having the inclination to opt for the right and avoid the wrong.

This trait is intrinsic to humans, as making choices based on individual assessments of right and wrong requires a brain capable of advanced cognitive functions.

Then there is contradiction in your answer to the question.
Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

By answering "yes" you are saying that we can have morality without knowledge of good and evil.

If someone has no knowledge of good or evil, they likely wouldn't frame their behavior in moral terms at all. They might still behave in ways that those who do would recognize as moral (or immoral), but they wouldn't think of their behavior as such. They would act based on natural impulses, social cues, or emotions without reflecting on whether their behavior is morally right or wrong. The idea of morality requires a conscious awareness of those categories, which they would lack.

[bluegreenearth]

When this understanding of "objective" is consistently applied for coherency, it logically follows from the description of "objective purpose" in P1b that created beings must only have the capability to pursue the good of themselves and others because that is the outcome the argument requires to avoid equivocating on the meaning of objective.

Only if the understanding exhibited was correct. But your example caused you to narrow the meaning of ‘objective’ by including an additional concept: that humans could not do otherwise. You’ve smuggled in the question of free will into the definition with no reason offered for doing so.

There is nothing in the definition of ‘objective’ (something like “independent of the opinions of the agents it is being applied to”) that conflicts with the agents it is being applied to having the freedom to go along with that standard or not. A proper definition of ‘objective’ is neutral to other questions like whether agents have freedom or not.

Premise 1a's description of "objective nature" references the example of a creator "X" that creates beings with a nature "(to where certain actions damage them physically, emotionally, etc.)" The only relevant reason the premise would provide this particular clarification is to emphasize the fact that the physical nature of the created beings is not something they have the option or ability to freely control or change. So, it isn't clear to me how the concept of "objective" is neutral to whether agents have the freedom to control or change their physical nature or not in this premise of the argument. Otherwise, if the created beings had the freedom to modify themselves to have a different physical nature from the one the creator initially applied to them independent of their opinions, then the only difference between an objective nature and subjective nature in this context would be that one is initially derived from the subjective actions of the creator and the other is subsequently derived from the subjective actions of the created beings themselves. The nature derived from the subjective actions of the creator would still satisfy your definition of "objective" for having the quality of being “independent of the opinions of the agents it is being applied to,” but it does nothing to transcend the subjectivity problem and merely kicks the can down the road. The only way the concept of "objective nature" can transcend the subjectivity problem is for it to necessarily entail the condition that the nature of created beings is something they could not have freely chosen for themselves or freely chosen to deviate from. The same logical reasoning must also apply to the concepts of "objective purpose" and "objective morality" if they are to transcend the subjectivity problem that the moral argument intends to resolve.

[TRANSPONDER]

But in a post I replied to just now you complained that you were talking Philosophy, not epistemology, so you make a distinction yourself.

No, I claimed I was talking ontology, not epistemology. Both are philosophy.

Of course, the term 'philosophy' can be used broadly (I recall the word means love of knowledge) and i have noticed that philosophical definitions (e.g materialism) are definitions that seem to be inherently unsound).

If any definition I’ve used is unsound, then show it and I can respond.

I thus am very suspicious of the use of "Philosophy" in Theistic discussion, because it so often tyurns out to be Sophistry, such as tossing word - salads, semantic fiddling ore trying to dismiss logic and scientifically validated evidence when it undermines the religious argument.

There is also bad science out there, but that doesn’t mean we chuck out all scientific claims from the discussion. No, we should do good science when doing science. We should also do good philosophy when doing philosophy. You can’t escape it or paint views that disagree with you as “Philosophy” as though you aren’t also doing philosophy. It comes down to the actual arguments made.

I know what you claimed. I also claimed it was dodgy and I am sure it is. God is the point here - to discredit the validity of human morality as not Objective, in hopes to smuggle in God as a giver of Objective morals. be honest now, hand on Bible for yourself, if not for anyone else. That's it, is it not?

And dickering about ontology vs epistemology is a pointless niggle just to try to push back against what i said. That is it, and no more than that, isn't it? Even if your point was fair, and in the context of your posts - pushing God as an option for morality, it wasn't, was it?

Again, be honest with yourself if you can't with me. And don't anyone think of trying to pull the personal attack card to silence an atheist. Those who do it cover themselves with shame. This is pointing up the flaws in a theist argument and their apologetic methods. It is NOT, a Personal attack·.

I love it here, and i love all you people, even my opponents, because underneath each denialist Bible - apologist is a rational skeptic trying to get out.

Don't ever play the personal card with me, because it only shows the bias of the person doing it.

Just sayin'. This is about semantics, not spite.

[The Tanager]

Premise 1a's description of "objective nature" references the example of a creator "X" that creates beings with a nature "(to where certain actions damage them physically, emotionally, etc.)" The only relevant reason the premise would provide this particular clarification is to emphasize the fact that the physical nature of the created beings is not something they have the option or ability to freely control or change. So, it isn't clear to me how the concept of "objective" is neutral to whether agents have the freedom to control or change their physical nature or not in this premise of the argument.

I wasn’t saying it was neutral in that respect. Yes, they don’t have the option to change their nature. If they are created with (a) freedom of the will, they can’t change that. If they are created with (b) no freedom of the will, they can’t change that. But their objective nature can be either ‘a’ or ‘b’. That was my point. It is neutral about whether (a) or (b) is true.