Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Mudhammam]

If I am to understand what you are saying correctly you are saying that subjective morality is defined by the initial acceptance of a given Subject of a given schema of morality?  After such time it is then contended that the Subject in question will adhere to that schema regardless of any subsequent determinations by the Subject.

Alas I fail to understand how this even remotely constitutes subjective morality as the Subject is not permitted to act subjectively at any point beyond the initial point (a subjective morality that is not subjective).  I would imagine that based on this description most on this forum would hold that you have given a definition of subjective morality tantamount to handing ones moral judgments over to some type of fundamentalist blind faith in a schema.  You know Religion

Blind faith? I think you may have finally discovered the difference between religious commandments, which are brandished with appeals to authority and supplemented by promises of reward and threats of punishment, and human morality, which actually entails formulating a system to live by that is most conducive to what a person believes will maximize their happiness and best avoid suffering. So, bravo.

And yes, subjective morality as I have suggested from the start is "defined by the acceptance of a given subject of a given schema of morality," which is to say, one usually hears arguments pro and con for a given scenario and then determines what they think to be correct given the values they esteem. And for these, there are no objective measures by which a person can be shown to be wrong; there can only be agreement as to what constitutes human flourishing and concession that this is what humans are really concerned about. 

It would appear that Kant, Einstein, and I are making the same confusion.  As the contention of each of us is that the value of subjective things is determined by some objective truth or reality. 

Einstein isn't talking about values; he's talking about objective truth with regard to facts about the physical world as opposed to mere ideas. I'd be curious to know what evidence or arguments you have in support of this "objective reality or truth" that determines your evaluations of goods. In your lack of demonstration for this notion thus far, you seem to be conveying that you haven't got much.

I would correct this to say persons who value the well-being of their species would find many of the acts committed in the name of divine inspiration utterly fantastic.   Then I would point you to the prominent everyday role religions have played in education, law, science, social advancement, protection of the populace from oppression, and social relief and aid.   Though this is what they are doing 98% of the time you are going to want to focus on the 2% that supports your belief.

Rarely (if ever) do religions expressly state to commit atrocities.  But religion is practiced by the Subject who though accepting the schema will still act in such a manner according to their whim (subjective morality).  Naturally they will seek justification for that whim wherever they can find it and by means of distortions when possible or necessary.  The desire is to blame the religion as if the persons in question could not have distorted anything else to justify their desired course of action.

Wow... it's kind of shocking that someone who claims Catholicism can feign utter ignorance at the barbaric notions of "righteous" household management and state governance that are contained in the Bible and the Qur'an, and their all too frequent insidious effects in the world both in the past and at present, with regards to, for example, the oppression of free thought, the promotion of superstition over science, xenophobia, sexism, slavery, etc. The list could go on but I'm not really interested in reiterating what anyone with even the slightest amount of intellectual honesty can easily discover for themselves.

A proxy objective morality would be contra to the concept of a subjective morality in that final evaluation of the rightness or wrongness of the act shall not be subjective, but shall be in regards to the schema.  The proxy objective morality attempts to approach the actual objective morality by means of various imperfect schemas.  Ideally the proxy objective morality shall no longer be a proxy of the actual, but shall indeed be the actual objective morality.

Aristotle recognize that morality may more commonly be found in the median and created a schema based on this that is an imperfect effort to approximate actual objective morality (I am a fan of the Golden Mean as well).  Bentham recognized that morality while be exercised by the self, effects and affects beyond the self and thus should not be evaluated in terms of the self.  He built a schema upon this to approximate actual objective morality based on moral valuation not determined by the self.  Kant recognized that in order for the morality of any Subject to have any validity it must appeal to the actual objective morality.  In short they are not competing objective moralities.  Per realism they are all imperfect representation of the actual objective morality.

”The truth is the simplest and most complicated thing to have existed.  While no man misses it entirely, no man hits it precisely.” - Aristotle

People desire to project their subjective values onto others by calling them "imperfect representation of the actual objective morality," a'la Plato's "Good," of which any conception is still just as subject to how a person evaluates the "a life worth living" as it ever was.

I like that Aristotle quote... Where's it from?

I had no questions about Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (As I am a realist and a huge fan).  We are in agreement on the importance of a human being to live their life.  Though theist do not contend as you do that this life is meaningless compared to the bliss of the next.  To theist the cause is greater than the effect, this life precedes the next where ones conduct and choices will be reflected.  As stated by Aristotle: “Virtue is not an innate condition but a form of habit. We become virtues by doing virtuous things.”  As such it may be said that in order to attain eternal virtue one must first attain a habit of present virtue.

You only live once…  So you better make it count!

Theists are as prone to the whims of their subjective moralities as anyone else is---except that portend the will (the absolute good!) of each of their competing deities!---but just take many Jews or Christians for example, as represented by their founding texts, the commentaries their theologians have written, and as exemplified by the monastic life throughout the history of Christendom (there was a good idea if I ever heard one!   ): they divide the soul from the body, placing all importance in the former (being akin to the strong male, while the body is associated with femininity and weakness, and the cause of so many evils! i.e. pluck your eye out so as not to lust, as Jesus says) while the latter is to be rejected, even mutilated, so as to free one (i.e. disconnect) from the world and experience the "ecstasy" of crucifying all passions that aren't transfixed on the words of their deity (which is in truth, when not man-made scriptures, their own voices), relying completely on their god and their faith (themselves projected on to what you call an imaginary friend)... history is littered with Catholic monks and priests, like men and women (well, not Catholic priests, cause God wouldn't allow that!) of other religions, who tortured themselves, even to the point of death, to ensure the upkeep of purity demanded for "salvation." But yeah... this life is uber-meaningful for the rewards it can get you in the next one!

Again you are arguing a subjective morality that is not subjective other than the initial adoption.  After that the Subject is compelled to comply with the rule adopted.  Now if you are to try and say that the Subject adopts rule X and complies with that rule only when X is in accordance with his subjective evaluations.  The question follows, what does the Subject due when the rule X does not comport with the Subjects subjective evaluations.  It is assumed that your answer will be they will act according to their subjective evaluation rather than according to rule X.  In which case you are wasting your time designating a rule X when the underlying truth is the Subject acts according to their subjective evaluations (which just so happened to commonly coincide with some rule X).  If this is your answer than we are talking about the subjective morality which I am referring to where each acts according to their whim in any given situation at any given time.

Now if you do not contend this position then you are saying (as stated above) that the Subject must act in accordance to the rule X they have adopted even if that rule does not agree with their subjective evaluation.  This is far from a subjective morality but is the beginning of the process to an objective morality by first adopting an objective proxy which shall serve as the determination of the moral quality of a given action.  This proxy is to be continually refined until one finally grasps the objective morality which shall serve as the determinate of the moral quality of actions.

Let's just work this out in practical terms. Say rule X is that it is wrong to lie. The evaluation of the subject is that the well-being of sentient creatures, by which we can include health, freedom, social relationships, and the other basic constituents that some would argue comprise our ontological needs, are what ultimately matter for the duration of a person's lifetime. We might also add that within his evaluation is that one should strive to live according to a rational framework that considers the most up-to-date empirical data. So, the initial adoption is that morality relates to these factors which define the wellness or misery of human beings. When the subject finds himself in a situation in which lying would actually promote the well-being of another, then he will reason as to whether or not, given the situation, it would be right to adjust rule X so as to allow for exceptions when similar occurrences take place. That doesn't negate the importance of rule X anymore than if one were to view smoking as harmful and yet find occasions when they allow themselves to enjoy a cigar. The same applies with virtually everything else. This is the point of raising ethical dilemmas in philosophy. Is it right to steal food from someone whom you know has an abundance in storage if your child is on the verge of death from hunger and you have no other means of providing them sustenance, and you know that if you don't steal then your child will die within a few days? Yes. Does that mean that it is pointless to regard stealing, all other things being equal, as in principal wrong? No.

Kant’s critique of Plato and Aristotle are the same. That while that which is commonly referred to as God may be inferred from epistemology, ontology, or teleology, none of those inference give rise to the particular personality of God.   However, we were talking about sufficient proof/evidence to make the inference of God no matter how vaguely understood or ill defined.  To which I made my response that there is sufficient proof/evidence of the three fields of knowledge to infer the possible probable existence of God though vaguely understood or ill defined.

As was told to Stimbo and Benny earlier on in this thread; through the various forms of knowledge you can get to the existence of objective reality.  You can further consolidate all aspects of that objective reality into a single entity which may be termed God.  But one cannot get to a specific personification of God without some kind of leap of faith or imagination.  The various forms of knowledge can get you 99% of the way there but it will not get you that last 1%.  And since God needs to be 100% proven (unlike anything else, which is the argument of the threshold of proof) that 1% is deemed (by those who are opposed to the inference) sufficient to say absolutely not!!!  We anthropomorphize any number of inanimate or animate objects, but when it comes to anthropomorphizing the God inferred by epistemology, ontology, or teleology, to get that last 1%...THEN WE ARE BEING RIDICULOUS!!

I prefer to use words that I have some sense of what it is I'm speaking about. To use the term "god," when one is speaking of the "totality of existence," or anything that is lacking intelligence or personality, is misguided, in my opinion. It's confusing and gives shelter to an overwhelming number of idiotic concepts. Besides, we already have a word for what you're speaking about in such a case: The universe. Nature also works too.

I am stating there is a difference between physiological reaction to stimiuli and metaphysical consciousness.  To your point I will concede the reactionary meat has a nerve center which responds to input stimuli with output stimuli (the means by which this nerve center produces the given output for the given input shall go undiscussed at present).  However, this sensory input/output paring at best is implicit circumstantial empirical proof/evidence of metaphysical consciousness and is not explicit direct empirical proof/evidence of metaphysical consciousness.  There does not need to be a consciousness present to match input any more than there is consciousness present in a calculator that provides any number of outputs based on the inputs entered.

If you want to discuss consciousness (or what you call metaphysical consciousness), I might suggest making another thread as there are other people here far more informed and knowledgeable about the different theories of how consciousness may possibly emerge from neural networks than I am. I'll just say that I find physical theories more compelling given the available data at this point, aside from my personal experience of consciousness developing with age and being altered in unison to brain states. Your suggestion that consciousness need not be present to match input is akin to saying that objects need not be animate simply because molecular structures form cells, tissues, organs, and functional systems... well that's actually just what being animate means. I think it's more likely than not that, to put it quite simply, to be a vast network of 100 billion nerve cells transmitting electrochemical signals is to be conscious... comparing it to a calculator and saying, "see, that isn't conscious so the brain must not be sufficient for consciousness" is a bit of a misnomer.

While I am a fan of evolution and believe it whole heartedly I must say Darwin did not demonstrate such nor does he even make reference to such in the Origin of Species.  Darwin contends that species shall adapt to their environment by means of natural selection.  He does not stipulate this adaptation shall be evolutionary or devolutionary; only that it will be more suited to the environment subsequent the change.  Darwin also focused on the evolution of plants and horticulture for his work which are devoid of the integral brains yet still evolved.  Now as living things plants react to their environment and respond to stimuli.  Are you contending they are conscious because they do so?  Are you contending they are not conscious because they have a peripheral nervous system rather than a central nervous system?

The relevant point that Darwin did demonstrate is that given natural selection in conjunction with the eons of time that have elapsed, molecular structures and the systems in living organisms that they develop into are able to multiply and diversify. Evidence of that would be the evolution of reptiles to mammals and then humans, which gave us a triune brain that contains the complexes of each while the former examples only possess those features in common that were acquired in the preceding stages.

Ha ha.  I am going to have fun with this and say can you prove or have evidence that none of those alternatives are the case?  Naturally I am going to need explicit direct empirical proof/evidence.  I am willing to bet you cannot so they are hypothesis to consciousness

Are you asking me to prove a negative? That's just... amateurish.

That it is!!!    For what it is worth I am an ardent support of strict adherence to the ideology that God may never serve as the foundation of an argument.   In order to avoid the very caricature you are making above.  Inference of God by epistemology, ontology, and teleology where not predicated upon the existence of God at the beginning of the arguments and avoid the caricature.

I find saying, “It just might be.  What else would that mean if it were” far more stimulating to curiosity and conversation than “I don’t know”.   Generally I would consider I don’t know the death knell of conversations.

Not valid inferences, but I'm more than happy to say "it just might be" too. It just might be the case that we're in a computer simulation created by mad scientists. 

HA HA!!  Einstein left the great majority of his assertions undemonstrated for more than 20 years!! Some for more than 40 years!!

And the demonstration of his assertions is again by synthetic aposteriori or implicit circumstantial empirical evidence.  The same evidence which may be utilized in the inference and assertion of God.  As I said before, I endeavor to maintain the same threshold of proof for God as all other knowledge including scientific.

Remember the value of a hypothesis, which I stated a couple of posts back? These are getting too long to be forced to have to repeat myself...

Historically it would be far from ridiculous and more akin to factual. Though I do confess that I find it sad that anyone would fail to recognize the prominence belief and faith have played in scientific, social, and cultural advancement.  Many of the greatest works of art, music, and literature were inspired by the belief in the imaginary guy(s) in the sky.  The belief of unity of all things with the single creator of all things and the desire to understand that creator lead to many of the breakthroughs in science.  You may not like it.  But history really does show that the belief in the imaginary guy(s) in the sky has led to the majority of advancement and masterpieces we know and love.

I would never discount the importance of creativity, including fiction and mythology, in the human experience. It's one of the reasons I love reading the Greeks. And sure, that can definitely inspire wonderful art and even ideas that later prove useful in science. But I try not to confuse the two, that is, reality and fiction. That's all I'm saying.

I reject your rejection and consider your assertion without evidence as greater claim than my own (as my claim is predicted on epistemological, ontological, and teleological inference and I have yet to hear your evidence on why I may not make such inference to support your rejection).   As such we may apply Hitchen’s razor in like manner and your rejection is unfounded.  I await your evidence disproving my inferences or to reject your rejection without evidence.

I'll give you one example that is often cited as an "inference" for God and let's see if you can find its flaws.
P1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C. The universe must a cause.
Inference. The cause is god.

The other alleged inferences are no better for the same reasons that I anticipate you will be able to cite.

I believe the comment was in regards to your statement that many modern philosophers find the previous logic of philosopher supporting an epistemological, ontological, and teleological inference of God onerous.  In which case the implication of your statement is that because many (argumentum ad numerum or populum) modern (argument ad novitatem) philosopher find the logic onerous than it is likely that logic is invalid.  I assure you I am paying proper attention to what you are writing and the implications therein.

I'm sure you've heard many historians cite, as an aside to their arguments for the existence of Jesus, that virtually no one in academia ascribes to the mythicist theory. So, do you also consider them to be committing an argumentum ad populum when they state that fact? Can you imagine any idea why they would do so? Do you think one might be wise to ask themselves why it is that---whether it's a majority, or most, or nearly all---experts who have considered the data or arguments find agreement on that point? Or are you just being dense?