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.

[The Tanager]

I find that I am confused. I'd have put subjectivism opposed to objectivism, and realism opposed to, say, unrealism.

I do think that makes more linguistic sense. I see objectivism and moral realism as synonyms. I more naturally use moral objectivism and it linguistically goes up against moral subjectivism. I have seen other objectivists talk about being a moral realist, but I haven't heard of subjectivists (or anyone) saying they believe in moral unrealism. I think we should try to make linguistic sense, though, so I'm fine in trying to do better with that.

Suppose there's a rule that a gentleman should tip his hat to a lady. Suppose we say that Liam should follow that rule but Joe need not do so (because he lacks a hat or arms). Is that relativism? Subjectivism?

I do not claim my usage is the right way. I find philosophers use these terms differently than each other. To me this distinction would be more about moral absolutism versus moral situationalism. An absolutist like Kant would say that lying is always wrong, no matter the situation. A situationalist would say that in some circumstances lying is okay, but not in others. I'd call myself a situationalist on this point.

I think objectivism vs. relativism vs. subjectivism is a difference that comes in once people are in identical situations. Joe and Liam would both need to have a hat and at least one arm. Objectivism would be the view that both Joe and Liam should tip their hat to the lady. A subjectivist would say, for instance, that it is right for Liam to tip his hat, but not necessarily for Joe, even though they are in identical situations because what is good depends on the individual (their differing emotions or differing wills or whatever).

Relativism is a bit trickier to me. Cultural relativism seem to me a sort of middle ground on this front. It seems to me that cultural relativism asserts that there are different objective realities for different cultures. That, for instance, in one culture you should kill the elderly to provide them with the strength they need in the next life (and better provide limited resources to society as a whole), but in another culture it would be wrong to kill the elderly. In a way, this may be moral realism, but it's definitely different than the moral realism of objectivism.

Individual relativism, to me, is a synonym for subjectivism, unless they are saying that each person has an objective standard that is not dependent on their desires or opinions at all. It seems to me that most cultural relativists and individual relativists are probably individual subjectivists, if pressed.

But you posit a non-human moral agent, so restricting this to humans seems twisted, weird, self-serving. Why are we carving out exceptions for gods, androids, Vulcans, and fairies? Why doesn't morality apply equally to them?

Perhaps this is a difference most people see in talking about moral realism and moral objectivism that I've missed. If you aren't limiting our focus to the human connection to morality when talking about moral realism, then what do you think about the following? Assume that stealing is wrong. We hold humans (of a certain developmental age) accountable for stealing. We don't blame babies. But we do try to teach them not to do it (at least eventually) and (at least sometimes) will give what was stolen back. We also don't blame animals for stealing food from each other. But should we try to keep them from doing it, spend time teaching them not to, and when we catch those doing it, give the good back to the first animal?

My point is that you may be focusing on acts being moral, while I think it's more of a feature for certain beings and not others. You may be saying that while animals can act immorally, we excuse their behavior due to lack of intelligence (or whatever). I'm saying that animals are amoral beings and that while they may commit acts that would be immoral if a human did them, they are neither moral nor immoral when the non-human animals does them.

Now, I would say God is a moral being, not an amoral being. But I think God has a different relationship to goodness. If God's subjective desires ground what is good for human happiness, then what we call 'good' is a reflection of God's very nature. That would mean that God is what humans see as 'goodness' and why many Christians have called God goodness itself. But, technically, God has a subjective relationship to what we deem 'goodness,' whereas people have an objective relationship to what we deem 'goodness'.

Moral egosim. Theistic moral egoism.

I go back and forth on this as well. Ultimately I think our best interests are served by being other-centered. Is that closer to egoism or utilitarianism or a third thing? To me egoists only consider the consequences on themselves. But utilitarians (pure net-world happiness) only consider the consequences on the greater good. Like you, I think there is a middle path. I'm struggling to understand what you mean by a middle path. Earlier you were saying that it is good to pursue net-world happiness. Now you seem to be saying it is sometimes good to do so and sometimes good not to.

In my view, both things get done at the same time. They go hand-in-hand. Caring for others, even at personal sacrifice, even to the point of giving up your life, results in more personal happiness than you could have had otherwise. But caring for yourself also results in being able to better care for others, which leads to more net-world happiness.

I think the complexity of our posts is confusing things. I propose going to a more basic foundation and trying to work back off of that. I think answering every nuanced question you have right now will just add confusion. But, please, make sure I'm not "stacking the deck" in my favor by how I frame this next bit.

If moral realism is true, then that means that in situation A, both Liam and Joe should act the same way. To me, saying "one should do X" is identical to saying "humans are 'designed' to do X." I don't think I use 'design' as a way to smuggle in agency; I'm allowing it to include humans being the result of unguided socio-biological evolution.

For this approach, I think our discussion basically boils down to the following: I posit God as the mechanism that accounts for human 'design' and you posit unguided socio-biological evolution. If God is the mechanism, then this would not logically contradict the conclusion that there is one way humans are designed to (or should) act. God could easily choose to design humans to act in one way. However that (or if it even can) works itself out is a later question, I want to make sure we understand each other on this first point first.

I think your mechanism logically contradicts your conclusion that there is one way we are 'designed' to act. Unguided socio-biological evolution 'designs' humans to survive and we survive through both (what we call) moral and immoral means. In that sense, an atheistic reality has multiple 'designs'.

You say that everyone is the same in your worldview. You further say that--still according to your worldview--people differ in my worldview. That's really frustrating to me.

How would you feel if I said that according to my worldview people differ in your worldview?

We both agree that Joe is for rape and Sara is against it. Yet you insist that they are the same in your view and different in mine.

This is my view: Joe and Sara are no more different in your my view than they are in yours.

I think you misunderstand me. In both of our views we have Joe and Sara disagreeing on the morality of rape. I'm not saying there is a difference there from our worldviews. The difference, I think, is that on atheism both are following their 'design,' while on theism only one of them is following their 'design'.

[Don McIntosh]

I just wanted to take a moment and say well done to the two initial posts in this primary dialogue. I prefer affirming other people whatever their views, and I think the tone of this discussion so far is brilliant. When I have time I'll try to add one or two thoughts of my own.

Ditto this. Excellent debate (from what I read of it) between two congenial and capable defenders of their views.

I remember Wiploc's posts from another forum some years ago, and I always appreciated him for being both concise and clever with his replies. Anyone who reads a few of his posts here will see what I mean.

On overall substance, though, I go with The Tanager, who has carefully, patiently (and effectively, I think) explained what I happen to believe is the truth of what best explains our strong tendency to moral realism.

[William]

[Replying to post 96 by The Tanager]

The idea is that IF 'GOD=life' THEN in order for GOD to sustain any thing with life (such as a biological form as an obvious example) GOD has to actually BE that life within that form. The idea of separating GOD from humanity by neglecting to include that understanding and promoting the contrary as a 'truth', naturally enough, creates its own problems. Such problems resolve themselves when acceptance of the 'IF/THEN' above is applied.

Are you saying that is my idea?

No. Am am saying the idea that GOD is separate from humans exists and that you accept that idea.

Or a tenet within your theism?

It is an obvious conclusion one would come to. GOD = life. Life = that which allows for the sustaining of the animation of the form. A cadaver has no life, and quickly enough reconstitutes into nature.

The point of this thread is to analyze worldviews to see if they lead to moral realism.

Be that as it may, I am responding to argument you have made re GOD being the source of moral realism. As far as the objective arguments go, i have seen no thing which in and of itself shows me that morality exists independent of our feelings and beliefs and accompanying attitudes - all very much subjective.

If you are saying that my view, because of this exact point, could not logically lead to moral realism, then I'm not making the connection and could use some help.

I am saying that you view that GOD owns humans beings - in the position of being separate from the created - is an unnecessary step to include, and belief in this can, has, and will continue to cause morality-based problems, largely based..not on realism, but lack of realism.

In the sense that...if one believes in the idea of a GOD who never changes, then the belief is nonnegotiable.

I'm still confused on what you are saying here. That I'm not willing to change my mind? Maybe an example of where a belief is negotiable would help me?

If you are willing to change your mind about any belief, then the belief is negotiable. If you are not, the the belief is nonnegotiable.

Thus negotiable belief is not fixed in place but malleable, changing as knowledge about things change. Moving with the flow.

I agree that Christians should not think God is going to come down and magically fix the problems. I think God calls (and empowers) His followers to do the work.

I refer to this process as an activation of realization. We are aspects of GOD-consciousness in human form owning our responsibility. In that, one no longer follows the idea of a GOD separate from ourselves, but rather a GOD who is integral to our true nature which has been cloaked in the fabric of flesh. This has had the affect of blocking us from that realization, and causing us to fabricate ideas of GOD which reflect that feeling of separation...from each other no less, which amounts to the same thing...feeling separate from GOD. remaining deactivated.

The actual fact is we are no more separate from GOD than the wind is from the air. We simply do not realize we are essentially the same being lost to the immediacy of that realization, because of our incarnation into form.

The realization does have the effect of bringing forth the understanding that the notions of moral realism do contribute to keeping separatism functioning.

Morals themselves derive from the nature of our collective situation but are also stymied due to our belief in separatism which causes the complexity of moral application through organised religion, culture, politics, scientific interpretation etc.

Separatism is thus the problem in regard to morality.

I think I need to explain more what I mean about the community. I'm not using any particular terminology, but it could probably be given more Biblical phrases to make it sound more traditional. Honestly, I'm not wanting to take the time to do that work.

This is exactly why my own theology accepts the notion that the next phase compensates for the lack of time involved in this one, in which the individual can sort it out sufficiently. There is no morality attached to that idea as it frees the individual to explore different situations in relation to their personal reaction to said situations, and gain experience through the process without the encumbering addition of moral consideration which forces the individual to make rash choices based solely upon faith-based ideas which are molded into nonnegotiable beliefs.

In one sense, every human is a part of the world community.

This is the primary truth regarding our shared reality. When it is not realized as truth, the problems occur.

In another sense, humans are either a part of the 'heavenly community' or the 'hellish community'.

This is less of a truth because it relies upon ideas of separatism before it can make that call. It also has the tendency to create unnecessary behavior based upon foggy thinking which works to create a barrier to the realization of the primary truth.

If list A= 'heavenly community' and list B = 'hellish community' and one asked everyone sharing this present reality to place their picks of which human behaviors belong in which list, we would likely find similar things in both lists, perhaps even creating a third option through that process. list C = 'the undecided community' which would likely be vaster than both lists A and B and would also reflect that - rather than knowing 'good from evil' -we accept that our actual position is we know very little at all, and certainly nothing which can positively be placed in only lists A and B at a collective level.

I don't "put" people in one community or the other based on how they act. I think the heavenly community has God as a member and our relationship to Him will affect how we act towards everyone else in the world community.

Thus the argument moves toward 'relationship with GOD' which I see as being no different than 'relationship with self' and 'relationship with others'.
Moral realism through subjective experience in the most simplistic/essential form of expression, devoid of notions of separatism.

I think people in this community often mistreat people in the world community, but are getting better by generally leaning on God for guidance and wisdom.

My interpretation of "leaning on GOD for guidance and wisdom", is to acknowledge that I am (and thus everyone is) are particles of GOD-consciousness conditionally situated within something which offers a huge variety of expression. We currently exist within the truth-reality which has it that we are individually at differing levels of understanding knowledge and applying it to behavior.

What I thus look for in self and other - is that expression of simplicity...relationship with GOD = relationship with self and other, devoid of notions which encourage separatism, regardless as to whether those notions are sourced within theist or atheist based ideals.

How we 'act' does put us into one of two categorical options. Separatist or Unifier. Our ideas are generally shaped through the platforms of separatism (already mentioned), and thus we must force the idea of unity into our reality, because it is not so easy to recognize as an actual thing in which nature makes obvious, but when we step back far enough we are able to see far better that this is in fact how nature does operate. As a single unified wholeness.

I think the hellish community is simply those disconnected from God's guidance and wisdom. I do not think that means that they don't do any good for the world community. Some do more good things than many on the "heavenly" path currently do. I think both communities have humans that could be doing a lot better than we currently are in loving one another and ourselves.

So these are observations as you interpret events. The grey area of making it up as we go along and remaining flexible to change through acquired information is the vast playground where our collective and individual experience(s) find footing in relation to "GOD's guidance and wisdom", or what non-theists might refer to using other terminology.

Because of free will, God can't logically be the protector, for His protection would negate free will.

Not if GOD is considered to being a separate entity from humanity. That is the premise for separatism regarding the position of GOD.

If GOD is every one of us, and we each understood this as the case, we become the GOD which is responsible for looking after itself in all its wholeness, specific to the shared reality of our experience and even in doing so, can not in any way negate our own 'free will'.

At creation God called humans to have dominion over the world. I think that means to take care of it. I think all of us in some way(s) abdicate that responsibility towards each other. Those in the hellish community are very often trying to care for each other, but I think those in the heavenly community have an omniscient and omnibenevolent source wanting to help people care for each other better.

That is your way of interpreting what you see.
For me, it is more a case of understanding that some folk require an outside "omniscient and omnibenevolent source" in order for them to get off their chuffs and make an effort, but in others this has an opposite affect, so in and of itself it doesn't provide anyone with any absolute conclusion one way or the other.

Activating the inner workings which motivate behavior of this sort - simply put - involves the idea that one cannot expect another to love one if one does not love ones self.

That in loving oneself one is far more able to love another. The idea of GOD is integrated into that perception along the lines of "If I were GOD then how would I behave in such a circumstance (as being incarnate within human flesh) and then act accordingly.

The confusion GOD brings to the process is only apparent when the idea of the GOD being a separate entity from that process, is believed.
If the idea was simply "I am GOD within human form having to learn how to love my self as that being - and through the acceptance of that idea - learn also how to see and love others" I integrate the idea with the reality, and in doing so align my self with it, and thus enable myself to see wholeness rather than separateness.

This would also work with secular thinking, only the idea of "GOD" is replaced with human potential related to self awareness as the motivating factor required by non theologians.

Essentially the same thing dressed differently, and recognized as such. Nothing in which to get on our high horses about, regardless of which 'camp' we are aligning with.

While the separatism is maintained, the job is not getting done by either.

[Replying to post 98 by The Tanager]

I think it is important in understand this idea of moral realism that it is acknowledged that there is no such thing as absolute good/bad or right/wrong as it clears the air of that foggy misconception and helps us to focus on remembering moral realism has no absolutes. The idea of any GOD being absolutely good also forces the idea that, therefore GOD has to be separate from humanity in that special way, which of course creates issues of its own.

I need some clarification on what you are saying here. How would you respond to the Liam thought experiment? Are you saying that rape is not always bad or wrong? How do you define moral realism?

Rape as defined by human beings is obviously wrong.

Rape as an activity tends toward the motivation to dominate, which is a integral aspect of nature, and thus can be regarded as natural.

GOD-consciousness responds differently depending upon what form it incarnates trough which to express itself, and the forms largely dictate how expressions manifest.

While naturally the motivation to dominate is a big part of nature, it can be connected with the idea of survival in a harsh environment, but as humans have developed means by which the compulsion to survive is eased off, such activity involving ideas of ownership/possession dominating etc become antithesis to these new developments. They belong in another time and place - situated in the past along the linear time-scale - and we learn to frown upon these actions because of that, and create morals in which to reflect the frowning and laws in which to give teeth to the morals, and attempt to exact justice against those who break them.

Unfortunately the laws often end up being nonnegotiable as well, and we become stuck with them, even when we know they are outdated and require changes.

When observing other species with similar brain sizes and behaviors - we can see - as with dolphins, behavior humans regard as rape, but which dolphin communities regard as part of the experience of being dolphin, and as such - acceptable and also observed to be malleable/changeable depending upon circumstances. There are no social structures designed to enforce laws painfully slow in process such as with human beings, and this has largely everything to do with situation (which include situations forced through form) - we share the same overall reality as dolphins (being on the same planet) but not so much the specific dominant reality of form and function.

Dolphin forms and functions have a vast ocean in which to play in, where boarders are constantly shifting in a more natural manner, and food, sex, reproduction are not restricted by concepts of ownership and possessiveness requiring proof of ownership and passports verifying ones nationality etc.

So within dolphins GOD-consciousness is more able to behave naturally because notions of good and evil and justice are not causing such problems but even though the form of the dolphin allows for a greater freedom of movement, it also limits what can be achieved.

Human form allows for GOD consciousness to get creative with the environment, and using the material of that environment to make tools which can help (and also hinder) human development and subsequent expression.

So our communities are based not only in what nature dictates we undergo without having any choice, but also upon technology we create through making tools in which to ease ourselves out from under that dictatorship to a certain acceptable degree.

If though, our devices are then used to significantly hurt nature, this can largely be traced to the fact that we do not fully comprehend how our forms are best used because we fail to understand ourselves as more than just the forms we occupy.

We let the forms dictate the terms and conditions more than we need to, in some circumstances, and in others we allow consciousness to dictate the terms and conditions more than we need to - to the detriment of the forms we are occupying.

Therein, one can establish that these aspects must have to find the sweet-spot in order to maintain the fine balance involved with our self-identifying processes.

For me - due to my preference for theological ideas - this amounts to recognizing I am GOD-consciousness within human form on a planet in a galaxy...determine not to go any more insane than the situation actually calls for, and working with that reality, learn what it must mean for GOD-consciousness to act in accordance with said situation, rather than against it.

...nobody said it would be easy... but I cerebrate the opportunity rather than bemoan it. I am currently a part of it, not a victim of it.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 103 by William]

William,

I feel you raise many interesting points and touch on important issues, but I see them as points for another thread. I'm fine if other people want to comment on them in this thread, but I really want to stay focused on what I see this thread being about.

[William]

[Replying to post 104 by The Tanager]

Well I am only arguing against your own argument Tanager, so why you feel my comments are not integral to the thread subject is beyond me.

I think my arguments have merit in relation to pulling your own arguments apart and examining them in detail.

Nonetheless, thank you for making the effort you did to at least try and address some of my arguments.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 105 by William]

It seems to me that you are responding to an argument like this:

P1: If The Tanager's theism is true, then moral realism is true.
P2: The Tanager's theism is true.
C: Therefore, moral realism is true.

You seem to me to be critiquing P2. I have not made this kind of argument here. In regards to my own view (in the language of the argument above), I have only been trying to support P1. If I missed your critique of P1, then I am sorry and would ask that you make those points again in a new way.

[William]

[Replying to post 106 by The Tanager]

I was arguing the an idea of GOD owning human beings was unnecessary in relation to the idea of moral realism.

So P1 is not true and I gave argument why that is the case.

Q: "Does Objective Morality Require a God?"

I think consciousness determines what is what, and depending on the situation consciousness is within, may get this wrong.

There is no way in which P1 can be potentially determined true or false other than to examine the underlying idea of what 'The Tanager's theology' involves. It appears your theology isn't helpful in showing one that ... because your theology exists, therefore "moral realism is true".

Objective morality may indeed 'require a GOD' in that the GOD would also be an objectively verifiable reality.

Does "Objective Morality" actually even exist? Does "An Objective GOD" actually even exist?

If that is the premise and the premise is false, does this mean that 'GOD does not exist'?

Not necessarily. Subjective morality certainly exists - but that is not under question.

Perhaps then the answer to the question "Does Objective Morality Require a God?" has to be "no" because Objective Morality does not exist, so there is no need for a GOD to have created it.

IF The Tanager's theism claims that "Objective Morality exits", THEN The Tanager's theism should easily be able to point it out.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 107 by William]

I was arguing the an idea of GOD owning human beings was unnecessary in relation to the idea of moral realism.

So P1 is not true and I gave argument why that is the case.

P1 doesn't argue that the idea of God owning humans (at least at the act of creation) is the only thing that would lead to moral realism. I've talked about moral platonism, if true, leading to moral realism and moral reductionism, if true, leading to moral realism as well. Do you mean something different by saying it is "unnecessary in relation to the idea of moral realism?"

There is no way in which P1 can be potentially determined true or false other than to examine the underlying idea of what 'The Tanager's theology' involves. It appears your theology isn't helpful in showing one that ... because your theology exists, therefore "moral realism is true".

I agree we need to analyze what my theology involves. But the last sentence here points to a possible misunderstanding (or you just worded it poorly). I'm not arguing that because my theology exists, therefore moral realism is true. I'm saying that if my theology is correct about reality, then moral realism would be true.

Perhaps then the answer to the question "Does Objective Morality Require a God?" has to be "no" because Objective Morality does not exist, so there is no need for a GOD to have created it.

That is one way to answer that question, for sure. Wiploc and I assumed objective morality (or moral realism) did exist for the purposes of this discussion, however.

[William]

[Replying to post 108 by The Tanager]

Perhaps then the answer to the question "Does Objective Morality Require a God?" has to be "no" because Objective Morality does not exist, so there is no need for a GOD to have created it.

That is one way to answer that question, for sure. Wiploc and I assumed objective morality (or moral realism) did exist for the purposes of this discussion, however.

Well okay then - assuming something exists when it does not, for the sake of arguing, is a whole other story.

Not to say that the points I did make are therefore null. The reader can decide...

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 109 by William]

Well, I definitely disagree with you about the existence of objective morals. I think there is a case that can be made for it, so I don't just assume it is true. Wiploc and I agreed there, so we wanted to talk about where we disagreed to challenge our own views and each other's.