Atheism and morality

[genkaus]

It doesn't matter whether one says 'morality instructs' or 'morality is consists, in part, of instructions'. The conclusion is the same. Morality either 'is' a person or is the instructions of a person. Either way a person, an agency, a mind, is implicated. That's why I'm not particularly bothered which one I go for and don't mind which one I use as a premise. For what is undeniable is morality's instructional nature that is motivating the need to posit an agency of some kind.

Actually, it does matter, because the conclusion in the two cases is not the same. And because you don't understand the different implications of these two statements that you fail to understand the nature of implied agency.

Instructions imply an agency - that much is correct. That agency could be someone who issues the instruction or someone to whom it is issued - the instruction requires only one to be an instruction. If we accept that "morality instructs" then morality becomes the issuing agent, thus resolving the issue of the nature of agency. But if "morality contains instructions", then the nature of agent is an open question. There could be someone issuing instruction or inferring them or both. And since, by definition, the latter is true, your starting position becomes that much compromised.

You can talk about ideas 'containing' instructions all you want. You either mean by it 'morality consists, in part, of instructions' or you're just confused (I don't know what you're saying, anyway).

Yes, when I say that "ideas contain instructions", I do mean to say that "morality is an idea that consists, in part, of instructions". How did you come to this brilliant conclusion?

At some point that 'instruction' cheque needs to be cashed. At some point one is going to have to show how a real instruction can come into existence. I have a method that is tried and tested - an agent issues it. YOu, it seems to me, do not.

I have already shown you how a real instruction can come into existence without the necessity of an issuing agency. It is a fact that if you don't do the work you won't be paid. I'm assuming that you desire to be paid. Thus the instruction "you should work" comes into existence without anyone issuing it and you receiving it all the same. Similarly, assume that it is a fact that money can only be used to buy goods and services. Assume you desire to use money. Then the instruction "you ought to use money to buy goods and services" comes into existence without an issuing authority. Similarly, under karmic law, it is a fact that you will suffer for your actions in your next life. You do not desire to suffer in your next life. Hence, you ought not perform certain actions. The last statement becomes the content of karmic morality.

And if your next argument is that in the given examples, the receiver serves the role of issuer as well, then the same principle applies to all natural law based moralities - the instructions are issued and received by the same agent while being based on an objective fact.

Anyway, you talk about the snail. In case someone suggests snails have beliefs and desires (and who knows, they may) let's talk about the tide arranging stones on the beach instead (that way we won't be derailed by side issues). As the tide goes out the stones, purely by coincidence, spell out 'go away!'. Is that an instruction? It appears to be. But it isn't, is it? Be honest, upon discovering how the stones have been arranged you would not, for one moment, continue to think you were really being instructed to go away, would you? Be honest. Someone who did we would think was attributing agency to the ocean or mother earth or some such.

Ofcourse, its an instruction - as long as there is an agent willing to see it as such. And I can consider it an instruction without attributing agency to the ocean or mother earth. Suppose on that day I had made up my mind to discern patterns in nature and if I could any meaning or direction there, to follow that direction. So a cloud in shape of an arrow becomes the instruction "go that way", a flickering light becomes "come hither" and an arrangement of stones becomes "go away". These are all instructions, even though they are a result of my own whimsical desire.

Morality instructs (or, if one prefers, is composed of instructions).

Facts are not a matter of preference. It is composed of instructions.

But they are real instructions. IF they are merely apparent instructions then that is just another way of saying morality doesn't really exist. There 'appears' to be an instruction not to disembowel people for fun - but there isn't really, there are just blind natural forces that produced brains that give people the impression that there are such instructions out there.
THe only way morality can really exist is if its instructions are real ones. And the only way its instructions are going to be real ones is if they are issued by an agent.

This would be an example of "No True Scotsman" fallacy. As I've shown you, an instruction need not necessarily come from an agency to be an instruction. It wouldn't matter if the said instructions are just the product of blind natural forces - they'd still be instructions. Real instructions. And therefore, morality would still exist even if everyone was just perceiving and deriving instructions from blind natural forces. That you wouldn't consider it 'real' morality is irrelevant, its still real.

---

I think you get some kind of perverse thrill out of using your stupidity to annoy people.

No, I get a perverse thrill in pointing out how stupid you are.