Spirituality
12 Jun 16
15 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonshipI remember watching an interesting documentary that relayed life on Earth to a 24 hour clock, upon which humans had only existed for 1 second. (This is from memory so might be a little squiffy). Bearing this in mind, talking about things that happened 50 years ago or even a 1000 years ago is really quite meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Are you sure Duke ?
Look, the knowledge of carbon atoms is relatively recent. And it is rather evolving. Fifty years from now what we say about carbon atoms may be entirely revised by other information.
I often refer to the cute cartoon I saw with some scientists around some complex equations on a blackboard. One of them is saying sadly -
"The mos ...[text shortened]... ll be much wider than those who can explain the carbon atom (if they even CALL it that by then).
I'd still put my money on carbon atoms over moral judgments, the latter more subject to change and inconsistency.
15 Jun 16
Originally posted by finneganIf follows that there can be no "absolute" set of standards, because apart from anything else it would have to be revised almost every day.
You are mistaken.
As a matter of fact, there is no circumstance in which I would judge or evaluate torturing of babies for fun (let's say TBFF) as morally acceptable - none whatsoever.
When my personal morality is engaged in the matter, I will always make the same moral choice.
It does not follow that this renders my moral judgement "absolute. ...[text shortened]... set of standards, because apart from anything else it would have to be revised almost every day.
Which part of "It's always wrong to torture babies for fun" would you have to revise almost everyday?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeHe made the claim that some atheists believe in moral absolutes, so I would like to know what their absolute moral point of reference would be.
Does his moral point of reference have to be absolute? And if so, who made it so? (Bearing in mind he described himself as an atheist).
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I remember watching an interesting documentary that relayed life on Earth to a 24 hour clock, upon which humans had only existed for 1 second. (This is from memory so might be a little squiffy). Bearing this in mind, talking about things that happened 50 years ago or even a 1000 years ago is really quite meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
I'd still put my money on carbon atoms over moral judgments, the latter more subject to change and inconsistency.
So you are saying that length of time is not important. But I think length of time known and number of people knowing are important factors to get our hands on this.
Sure, if millions of years happened and no humans were around, we can eliminate those years from either consideration.
No people to know about carbon atoms.
No people to know the wrongness of torturing babies for fun.
But when we come to the history of man and man's knowledge AND when we take into account the number of people doing the knowing, I would say:
1.) Less people for a shorter time could explain anything about a carbon atom.
2.) More people for longer time could explain the heinousness of torturing babies for amusement.
I think the moral matter has been known by a wider group of people and for a longer period of time.
Originally posted by sonshipSure, but we could add:
[quote] I remember watching an interesting documentary that relayed life on Earth to a 24 hour clock, upon which humans had only existed for 1 second. (This is from memory so might be a little squiffy). Bearing this in mind, talking about things that happened 50 years ago or even a 1000 years ago is really quite meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
...[text shortened]... hink the moral matter has been known by a wider group of people and for a longer period of time.
3. More people, for longer still, knew that fish tasted good.
Does this mean that knowledge that fish tasted good is more significant than knowing about carbon atoms or moral judgments just because it's a longer held knowledge?
I'm not sure where you're going with this to be honest. Even accepting ' more people for longer time could explain the heinousness of torturing babies for amusement' doesn't bring anything meaningful to the 'absolute truth' table.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Jun 16
4 edits
Hypothetical:
Let's say IF you had to choose one knowledge or the other knowledge.
if you had a newborn baby left with a baby sitter, which would you desire that baby sitter be knowledgable of - if it had to be one or the other ?
1.) Carbon atoms exist ?
2.) Torturing your baby for fun is absolutely wrong ?
I would prefer that if I had to go with one or the other, that that baby sitter KNOW that my baby left in his or her care should not be tortured for fun.
Do you prefer that they be conversant on the carbon atom instead if one had to be chosen ?
I believe that torturing children for fun is absolutely and unequivocally immoral. Although I appreciate Finnegan’s approach on the matter here, I understand the desire for some more philosophical argument in support [which “Because (this or that) god so decrees” also fails to satisfy]. But Finnegan is surely right in this respect: the argument of an Aristotelian virtue ethicist is unlikely to be accepted by a Kantian deontologist—and vice versa; similarly with respect to a Divine Command believer and anyone else (theist or otherwise).
So, although we might all agree that torturing children for fun is absolutely and universally immoral (without exception), we are likely to disagree on just why. But, whatever argument might be made, on whatever rational basis, the Divine Command dogmatist is just going to keep asking “How do you know?”—because in her/his mind the only possible “right” answer must be “Because [my] God says so.” [Similarly for any other dogmatist.]
The Aristotelian or the Stoic or the Kantian or the Divine Command believer may all believe that (1) torturing children for fun is everywhere and always morally wrong (as an absolute truth), and (2) that their particular moral matrix demonstrates that fact beyond reasonable doubt. They might also believe that (3) only their particular moral matrix does demonstrate that fact.
What that seems to come down to—and what this thread seems to come down to—is a kind of a priori denial of the premises involved in any moral matrix except one’s own (which, in this thread, seems to be a divine command matrix). That means that the game here is, so to speak, rigged. Which means that rational engagement is pointless.
Now, I admit that I am speaking from years of experience on these threads—and my view is colored by that experience. But I invite the various participants here to just celebrate the fact that we seem to universally agree that torturing children for fun is morally wrong—and to allow for the fact that differing moral matrices might validly convene on that view.
Originally posted by sonshipOne type of atheism is sufficient for this discussion.
You singled out Positivism, called them [b]idiots, and gave the impression that I was unfamiliar with all but THAT form of materialistic Atheism.
Your reluctance to indicate other forms, makes me think the former proposed expertise was a bluff.
Either that or you want to r ...[text shortened]... [/quote]
Careful now. Remember the entire burden is all on me, you said. Shhhhhh![/b]
You singled out Positivism, called them idiots, and gave the impression that I was unfamiliar with all but THAT form of materialistic Atheism.
I am not sure that Positivism is a form of atheism, though I can quite see that Positivism implies atheism. There are interesting debates on the topic which you would find if you used Google to ask the question. Let's consider a few comments that I have borrowed from http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/is-logical-positivism-atheism-64062.html
So if we were to ask "Do you believe in God?"
The theist says, yes I do.
The atheist says, no I don't.
The logical positivist says the question is complete nonsense as the word "God" has no meaning.
The atheist and theist both believe the question is not nonsense and answer it; so technically logical positivism differs from atheism.
To see why, notice that a Logical Positivist could ask even more questions in response to the simple "Do you believe in God?" One comment was this: "One would need to elaborate the definition of atheist beyond the usual 'person who lacks a belief in God' in order to determine whether Positivism entails atheism. In particular, one would need to answer those two questions 'what do you mean by God' and 'what do you mean by "believe in"'. Without doing that, 'atheism' is just another undefined term and we cannot say whether or not Positivists are atheists." In other words, a positivist might decline to believe in atheism.
Another contributor noted that what happens in practice is that people do not simply use the simple term "God" but add all sorts of further terms that make the notion more complex - as a minimum, they will probably identify the western monotheist concept "God" in preference to alternatives.
Historically, Positivism is associated with the writing of Comte and then the Vienna Circle, and hence with atheism in practice, but that is not necessarily the case all the same. Again, a useful contribution said: "While the Vienna Circle may have all been atheists, there is nothing in Logical Positivism that necessarily entails atheism. I can imagine a hypothetical Positivist that had certain psychological experiences that were prima facie evidence of divine intervention - miracles. It would not be contrary to the Positivist's epistemological system to infer from those miracles that a deity intervenes in the world. Now those miracles may be delusions induced by brain disorder, drugs or perhaps even mischievous trickery by the Positivist's friends. But if the evidence seems strong enough, it would be reasonable for the Positivist to believe it, and they would not be discarding their Positivist principles in doing so (at least, not so far as I understand Positivism, which is not in great detail)."
A different site includes this "If you utilize the weak principle of verification, Christian Positivism is possible. One can interpret physical observations of complexity (or claims of miracles) as indirect evidence for the existence of a god or designer, even though this is not a rigorous application. All it requires for someone to believe in a god and be a positivist is a belief that some quantity of physical evidence for that god exists." https://www.quora.com/Are-most-atheists-positivists
People offering proofs of God or intelligent design or creation science etc are positivist Christians and also idiots, not primarily because they are Christiain, but because they are positivists. .
Must stop now. I may return to your other questions.
Originally posted by finneganYou singled out Positivism, called them [b]idiots, and gave the impression that I was unfamiliar with all but THAT form of materialistic Atheism.
I am not sure that Positivism is a form of atheism, though I can quite see that Positivism implies atheism. There are interesting debates on the topic which you would find if you used Google to ...[text shortened]... in, but because they are positivists. .
Must stop now. I may return to your other questions.[/b]Well, as I recall, the nail in the coffin for the logical positivists was that their criteria for what constitutes a meaningful statement does not meet their criteria for a meaningful statement (i.e., either being true analytically, or being empirically verifiable) . Ooops.
Does the following statement meet those criteria: “God (i.e., the Christian God) is just”? I would suggest that the Christian positivist takes this statement as analytically true, and therefore not subject to further inquiry—for example, what exactly does acting justly mean (for anyone), such that God meets this criterion. For such a positivist, God is not subject to any criteria—including criteria for what constitutes a meaningful statement, except by definition (analytically). As was the case for the logical positivists generally, this reduces to such a statement being just meaningless.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat I wrote was, including a typo, this:
[b]If follows that there can be no "absolute" set of standards, because apart from anything else it would have to be revised almost every day.
Which part of "It's always wrong to torture babies for fun" would you have to revise almost everyday?[/b]
If follows that there can be no "absolute" set of standards, because apart from anything else it would have to be revised almost every day.
As I did not say that your particular example would itself have to be revised evey day, your question is foolish. My point is that whatever list of standards you employ, if it includes such specific examples as "It's always wrong to torture babies for fun," then it would have to be revised as new problems came up for a moral decision. I gave the example that some novel moral and ethical choices arising in modern medicine would have been beyond imagining even two centuries ago.
I mean to say, "It's always wrong to torture babies for fun" is not, for example, one of the Ten Commandments. I wonder if Moses could have even carried his tablets of stone if it were to include that level of specific detail.
As for being an "absolute" moral standard, why would we even need such a specific statement - surely we could work this one out for ourselves? If you ever find yourself contemplating the torture of children for fun, as might arise in some scenario that I cannot envisage right now, and you wonder if it is a bad idea morally, will you refer to an extensive mental list of moral standards like building regulations or standards for electrical installations to see whether any absolute standard has been provided for this specific moral dilemma? To torture children for fun or not to torture children for fun, that is the question! And what if this dilemma is not on the list through some divine oversight?? OMG torturing children for fun is not listed! What should we do???
I think not. If you need divine guidance to make this particular decision, then you are very, very disturbed.
I think the concept of a set of absolute moral standards is plain silly.
Originally posted by finneganIt seems that you and I are—from somewhat different perspectives perhaps—converging to the same point. Suffice it to say that, from the point of view of a (perhaps neo-Stoical) virtue ethics, the proposition that torturing children for fun could in any way be considered moral would be a logical contradiction—and the mark of a delusional, pathological mind.
What I wrote was, including a typo, this:
If follows that there can be no "absolute" set of standards, because apart from anything else it would have to be revised almost every day.
As I did not say that your particular example would itself have to be revised evey day, your question is foolish. My point is that whatever list of standards you employ, i ...[text shortened]... ry, very disturbed.
I think the concept of a set of absolute moral standards is plain silly.
Further, such a virtue ethicist (such as myself) might wonder at the mind that could conceive of a world in which that proposition could be moral—absent some divine command to the contrary.