Peanut Gallery for Tanager & Wiploc on the Moral Argumen

[wiploc]

This is the peanut gallery thread for those who wish to comment on Tanager and wiploc's one-on-one discussion of the question of whether objective morality requires the existence of a god.

I couldn't fit all that in the title, above, so I just called it the moral argument.

Tanager and I won't post here until after our one-on-one thread closes. But we may respond to comments here in our one-on-one thread.

Exception: Once our one-on-one thread exists, one of us will come back here one time to post a link.

[William]

[Replying to post 39 by Divine Insight]

By true ethics I mean something which is not just based upon opinion, be that minority or majority.

Going back to your logic argument - do you believe that logic deals with truth - the truth of the matter of anything?

If so, then that might be enough indication for you as to what I mean by true ethics. One might then argue that if there is true ethics then there would have to be false ethics, so perhaps too, you might want to contemplate things which are generally understood to be 'ethical' but are not based in truthfulness when logically examined.

Hopefully the above helps clarify what I mean by true ethics, and in that you might be able to answer my question.

[Divine Insight]

Going back to your logic argument - do you believe that logic deals with truth - the truth of the matter of anything?

Logic only deals with truth with respect to any underlying unprovable premises that have previously been accepted via consensual subjective opinions.

Logic itself does not represent any absolute objective truth. Logic is simply a formalism invented by humans to formalize the way in which we reason. All logic must begin with unprovable premises. Because of this it's impossible to say that logic alone represents any actual truth. After all the underlying premises that have been assumed at the beginning of the logical reasoning could themselves be flawed.

So no, logic does not represent absolute truth. Even logic is open to subjective opinions.

Where this changes in when a specific formalism demands that certain unprovable premises or axioms must be accepted by everyone who participates in the formalism. This is how mathematics works. In fact, if you think that mathematics represents some underlying objective truth, then you haven't fully grasped the formalism. Because the formalism begins by demanding that you accept axioms that cannot be demonstrated to be true.

So no, logic itself does not represent any absolute truth. However logic can determine what conclusions are valid once commonly accepted premises have been embraced.

When I pointed out why Peterk's logical reasoning was flawed, I did so because it is commonly held that just because people believe something it doesn't follow that what they believe must be true. That was the logical reasoning he was offering.

Obviously, if a person rejects that premise and embraces the notion that if someone believes in something it must be true, then their logical conclusions are going to differ.

One thing we can show, however, is that when starting with certain premises it can be easily shown that the conclusions based on those premises fail by self-contradiction. In this way we can recognize premises that are seriously flawed. However this doesn't guarantee that premises that don't result in self-contradictions are necessarily true. They are simply "logically consistent".

We see this in mathematics where we can arbitrarily choose different premises in geometry and produce multiple geometries, all of which produce different conclusions, yet they are all 'consistent' in terms of self-consistency.

So no, logic alone does not represent truth. But it does represent sound reasoning once certain unprovable premises have been embraced.

~~~~~

In fact, if you want to start a logical reasoning concerning "true ethics" where your opening premise is that it should be considered to be 'unethical' or wrong if any humans are harmed. Then you can indeed build from there a logical system and see where it leads. However, you should never lose sight of the fact that your entire logical "house of cards" stands solely on the foundation of your unprovable premise that it's wrong if any humans are harmed.

That was your unproven premise upon which you launched your logical reasoning.

So no, logic doesn't represent 'truth'. Logic simply represents a strongly formalized means of reasoning once foundational premises have been embraced. But logic can say nothing about the truth of the foundational premises that you have chosen to build upon.

So if you want to invent a whole new system of "ethics" called "True Ethics", then you are going to need to explain what premises you wish to place at the foundation of your logical journey.

If your foundational premise is that no humans should be harmed, then that is a subjective opinion already. Perhaps one that you will get a lot of subjective support for, but still subjective none the less.

It's also going to lead to self-contradictions as you build it. I can tell you that with certainty already because there will be instances where preventing the harm of one person may require bringing harm to another. What do you do then?

[Divine Insight]

By true ethics I mean something which is not just based upon opinion, be that minority or majority.

Now it's your job to explain what that something is.

[William]

[Replying to post 43 by Divine Insight]

I have been giving an example of one such thing I think that describes true ethics (or true morality as I first called it until it became apparent that you associate that word with religion and thus don't like to use it), and have mentioned it at least 4 - if not more times already.

So lets just go with that one...

[William]

[Replying to post 42 by Divine Insight]

Logic only deals with truth with respect to any underlying unprovable premises that have previously been accepted via consensual subjective opinions.

If your foundational premise is that no humans should be harmed, then that is a subjective opinion already. Perhaps one that you will get a lot of subjective support for, but still subjective none the less.

It's also going to lead to self-contradictions as you build it. I can tell you that with certainty already because there will be instances where preventing the harm of one person may require bringing harm to another. What do you do then?

Are you saying that truth doesn't actually exist in any absolute manner?

I think at least one can say that all your reasoning has to do with arguing that there is no absolute truth, morality, ethics, good, et al so that it is clear there is no arguing FOR that.

Indeed, it would appear equally that there is no arguing against that for the same reason. It all gets down to absolutes, and one might be able to claim that the only absolute is that no thing is absolute.

Do you think this is true?

I would have to say though, that the bare bones of the argument you are giving is more a case of mental sleight of hand in relation to human societies - a wee 'safe-place' where one can position oneself in a state of indifference and aloofness by simply claiming that there is no truth, morality, ethics, opinion, goodness etc et al - simple by placing the word 'absolute' in front of it.

As I have been saying all along, my argument is not about 'absolute' morality. Each time you answer me you conflate that with what I have been saying. So no. I am not trying to "invent a whole new system of ethics called True Ethics" as you spun it, but using normal everyday language I simply asked if you could agree that you not purposefully causing me harm and I not purposefully causing you harm...was truly ethical rather than simply opinion which we could take or leave depending on our mood swings...

But by all means, if indifference and aloofness is the place one hangs ones hat, spin away.

[Divine Insight]

Are you saying that truth doesn't actually exist in any absolute manner?

Nope. I never even remotely implied that. I simply said that our system of logical reasoning is based on unproven premises that we first accept. That's nowhere near the same as claiming that truth doesn't actually exist.

I think at least one can say that all your reasoning has to do with arguing that there is no absolute truth, morality, ethics, good, et al so that it is clear there is no arguing FOR that.

No. This is your incorrect assumptions. I never said that absolute truth does not, or even cannot exist. None the less, if the human concept of morality is indeed dependent upon human subjective opinions, then that itself is an absolute truth.

And I see no reason to believe that it isn't a totally subjective human construct. After all, human ideas of morality are clearly human-centric. That should give you a heads-up right there.

Indeed, it would appear equally that there is no arguing against that for the same reason. It all gets down to absolutes, and one might be able to claim that the only absolute is that no thing is absolute.

Do you think this is true?

No. As I see it you are lumping concepts that are clearly dependent on human subjective views in with other concepts that may indeed have absolute objective truths.

As I see it, you simply cannot see the difference between opinions and objective reality.

You seem to be trying to imply that if I see a concept like morality as being a subjective judgement constructed by humans then I must then give up the idea of there being any absolute truth to anything. And that simply doesn't follow.

So I don't even agree with your entire line of thinking.

I would have to say though, that the bare bones of the argument you are giving is more a case of mental sleight of hand in relation to human societies - a wee 'safe-place' where one can position oneself in a state of indifference and aloofness by simply claiming that there is no truth, morality, ethics, opinion, goodness etc et al - simple by placing the word 'absolute' in front of it.

I never made that claim. You made that claim up all on your own.

Just because human concepts of morality are totally dependent upon what humans subjectively decide is moral or immoral doesn't mean that there cannot be any objective truths concerning other things.

As I have been saying all along, my argument is not about 'absolute' morality. Each time you answer me you conflate that with what I have been saying. So no. I am not trying to "invent a whole new system of ethics called True Ethics" as you spun it, but using normal everyday language I simply asked if you could agree that you not purposefully causing me harm and I not purposefully causing you harm...was truly ethical rather than simply opinion which we could take or leave depending on our mood swings...

You can't speak of "Truly ethical" until you have defined that concept.

If you define "ethical" to require that no one be harmed, then obviously not being harmed is going to be "true" to that definition. But that doesn't make the original definition objective. It's still a human construct since you have decided that you would like to define ethics around a foundation of no one being harmed.

Would animals be included in that?

Or are you creating a human-centric ethics?

But by all means, if indifference and aloofness is the place one hangs ones hat, spin away.

Indifference and aloofness has absolutely nothing at all to do with it.

Apparently you simply can't understand that a concept like morality requires a conscious mind passing judgements on whether or not something should be branded as 'right or wrong'.

I personally don't see the problem with human subjective morality. In fact, if we could all realize that this is indeed our reality, then we would be in a far better place to decide what we would like to consider to be right or wrong within our societies.

That's where we need to be.

What's wrong with facing the reality that morality is indeed a human construct?

I don't understand your extreme resistance to that idea.

Even if you chose to define the foundation of ethics to be based on the idea that no one should be harmed, that's still a human construct. It certainly didn't come from the objective world around us because the natural world doesn't care whether anyone is harmed or not. Therefore it must be a human subjective desire to not be harmed.

I think the answer is obvious. In fact, I'm totally cool with saying that it's an 'objective truth of reality' that humans have subjectively constructed a concept of morality.

I think it's pretty obvious. Alligators certainly don't value the same things that humans do. Therefore human ideas of morality are indeed human-centric. (i.e. totally subject to human subjective opinions)

I think we can safely say that this is an objective truth of reality. The evidence for it is overwhelming.

Attempting to do a character assassination on me by proclaiming that I'm indifferent and aloof is utterly absurd. I'm just telling it like it is, and apparently you can't handle the truth so to avoid the truth you turn to making personal insinuations against me.

By the way, shouldn't that be against your 'true ethics'. Shouldn't an attempt to belittle someone be considered 'harming' them?

[Divine Insight]

It seems to me that Tanager just answered the question of the Head-to-Head debate:

The question of the debate is: Does Objective Morality Require the Existence of God?

Tanager just stated in the HTH debate:

And we both agree rape is only bad. It is a bad act made up of felt happiness and felt unhappiness by different people.

So there we have it. If 'bad' is being objectively measured by the feelings that people have, then we can clearly have a concept of objective morality without requiring the existence of any God. All that's required are the feelings of the humans who are judging things to be 'good' or 'bad' based on their own personal experiences.

Whether we want to think of the personal experiences of individual humans as an objective or subjective matter is really the question. Obviously there is no need for a God either way.

So if morality has to do with what humans experience as being 'good' or 'bad', then all that is required for an objective morality is human experience.

We can argue till the cows come home whether human experience is itself an objective or subjective matter. But even if we embrace it as an objective concept, it still wouldn't require a God. All that's required is human experience.

And this would still make it human-centric. In other words, it's still a human subjective experience relative to the universe as a whole. We can argue that it's objective in the sense that humans really do have experiences, but our concept of morality would still be based on human experience and therefore necessarily relative to human experience.

So it could never be said to be any sort of absolute objective property of reality as a whole. It's a property of the human condition. I don't see any problem with this. No goes required.

[William]

[Replying to post 47 by Divine Insight]

The question of the debate is: Does Objective Morality Require the Existence of God?

Tanager just stated in the HTH debate:
Quote:
And we both agree rape is only bad. It is a bad act made up of felt happiness and felt unhappiness by different people.


So there we have it. If 'bad' is being objectively measured by the feelings that people have, then we can clearly have a concept of objective morality without requiring the existence of any God. All that's required are the feelings of the humans who are judging things to be 'good' or 'bad' based on their own personal experiences.

Is a 'concept' of 'objective morality' the same as an actuality that objective morality does exist?

Also, what if we are all aspects of GOD-consciousness - then wouldn't that denote that concepts wouldn't exist without GOD, 'required' or not?

The difficulty I see here is that The Tanager is arguing from the specific position of belief that GOD is separate from [his] universe, enthroned as GOD in another alternate universe. In that your "so there we have it" holds merit of course, but only if you take that one idea of GOD and work with that excluding all other ideas of GOD.

Panentheism, as you are aware, has a different idea of GOD.

In that it can still be argued that there is no apparent observable objective example of morality (or for that matter immorality) displayed in this universe as the universe appears to be neutral in that area, and even if one thinks consciousness is within inanimate objects (as does Panpsychism) one cannot say - for example - that the earth is acting immorally when something happens directly from its activity which causes biological creatures harm.

Yet, as argued, we can observe human behavior as an objective reality.
We know that behavior which purposefully harms others is bad, not because we decide that it is so, but because it actually is.

We also know that people can act badly with or without any idea of GOD being a motivation.

But this does not mean that GOD is not involved in our understanding of what is good or bad.

Obviously if an idea of GOD which does bad actions is considered good, this can be judged as immoral because we also know that morality isn't about whether one is a 'GOD' or not. It is simply about behavior and the alleged actions of GODs are not exempt from that judgement just because they are 'GODs'.

Indeed, one can even argue that GODs who do act immorally should never be referred to as such. One understands that doing so reduces the idea of GOD to something which isn't really required. Immoral GODs are not required.

So in regard to the idea that GOD-consciousness is the unifying factor in relation to all consciousness, we can say that those individuate consciousnesses who act immorally do so because they are either unaware of what GOD is, or have a distorted understanding of what GOD is.

But we cannot say "So there we have it. If 'bad' is being objectively measured by the feelings that people have, then we can clearly have a concept of objective morality without requiring the existence of any God." because this expression ignores the possibility that we have 'feelings', experience subjective reality as individuals, learn what is 'good' and 'bad' because we are all - each and every one of us - aspects of GOD whether we know this, intuit this, get the gist of this, flatly refuse this, or continue to hold to the concept that GODs simply do not exist. One cannot make that assertion (so there we have it...) without excluding those ideas of GOD which are not involving separatism.

[Divine Insight]

Panentheism, as you are aware, has a different idea of GOD.

Exactly and pantheism doesn't apply here at all. If pantheism is true there cannot be any such thing as objective 'bad'. Remember, in pantheism God is all that exists.

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by Divine Insight]

Exactly and pantheism doesn't apply here at all. If pantheism is true there cannot be any such thing as objective 'bad'. Remember, in pantheism God is all that exists.

There doesn't seem to be any sound reasoning in the above couple of lines, which my own post didn't already cover DI. Perhaps you can expand on what you have said for the sake of clarity so as to address those points I made.