Morality

[Acrobat]

So let's consider it as a testable hypothesis. We take a group of philosophy majors, a group of RNs, or a group of mechanics, a group of factory workers, a group of finance majors (groups without a college education, or at best a technical degree)
...
In your view the philosophy majors would come out on top? This group contains better moral role models than the other groups?

I would disagree, that at best there’s no real difference between their actual moral lives.

Without the data, neither you nor I could make such a judgment. And it isn't really a testable hypothesis. I suppose it could be tested, in principle, but in reality: we will never know. But this is of no consequence to me. I never said that being earning a degree is always accompanied by moral growth. See the bold in the quote below

If we don't have the data to support either conclusion, how then can we can say education in particular majors is strong contributor to moral development?

If we have an adequate amount of diverse social relationships, we met a variety of people of exceptional good character, kind, considerate, honest, and compassionate types, we could form some reasonable conclusions here.

One of the things i can say in my observations, is that while there might be common variables among them, that have contributed to their goodness, it wouldn't be an education, or studying philosophy, etc...If they are good and educated, this seems to be in spite of their education, not a development that arose from it.

Hence the reason why I doubt yours, and Brian's suggestions.

If someone approaches psychology, sociology, or philosophy with the intent to use such knowledge to inform their moral decisions, they will (typically!) get a lot more from it than one can from study of the Bible.

If the contribution of fields like philosophy, is to improve our moral reasoning, our ability to work through moral abstractions, then perhaps. But actual moral development and behavior, there seems to be little to no correlation between the two.

“It has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found.” - Michael Gazzaniga

As far as the bible is concerned that relationship is even more difficult and complicated to parse. Such as how much influence of the story of exodus, the religious life of slaves, the suffering Christ, influence the moral lives of slaves, in their resistance and hopes? Nietzsche would contribute a great deal of our western moral development, as a result of Judeo-Christianitity, the transition for a master-slave morality, to slave-master morality, that values humility, charity, love, forgiveness, etc…  I’m sure you might argue otherwise, but I’m not too interested in arguing this point.

That rightness and wrongness of things exist independently of our own minds, that moral facts exists, like the chair in front of me does. That there’s a Good, that we’re all at some level oriented to...

I am a moral realist. I agree with you here. It's just that you think the Good is some kind of cosmic person. I think the Good is an abstract idea that can be understood through reasoning.

I view the Good as a reality and not an abstract idea, not as a “cosmic person”, whatever that might mean.

I believe in similarly to how Plato expresses it:

“in the world of knowledge the idea of Good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world…”

In my view, the Good is something very real. And it exists independently of our opinions and subjective notions. It is like logic. Something isn't logical or illogical based on someone's opinion. There are objective criteria by which we categorize a statement logical or illogical. In that way, you could say that logic exists "independently of a mind." But (in the same way) there is no logic without minds. Likewise, there is no moral judgment without some kind of mind. (In a universe without minds, morality becomes quite meaningless, doesn't it?



In my view it’s not like logic, it is like Truth. Logic, and reason may be used to discern what’s is True or what is Good, but is not truth or good itself, which exists independently of logic. To say it’s similar to logic, is like suggesting a shovel used to dig gold out of a ditch, is like gold itself.

...that obligates us to do what’s right, that is it’s own moral authority, etc..

This is where you and I disagree concerning morality. But I don't know if most Christians have an urge to TRULY fulfill their moral obligations. S…

I don’t know about an urge to truly fulfill their moral obligations, but they can’t deny they have moral obligations,  or the primacy of good. Such beliefs prohibit them from being nihilist, and denying that they have such obligations at all.

There's plenty here for us to discuss. I agree with some of it, disagree with other parts. I would like to make sure we are on the same page first. Morality (or conception of the Good) can be rooted in reason. No God is necessary. This was demonstrated by Plato. Here is a modified version of his Euthyphro argument that shows that even morality commanded by God must actually be rooted in reason:



Morality isn’t rooted in reason, just like Truth isn’t rooted in reason. Reason can b used to help discern the Good, perhaps even the root of Good, but it is not the root itself.

The Good is anchored in reality, not in our minds, or reasons, and logic.

And as indicated, I’m all about Plato’s Conception of the Good,  in fact we can contain the entire parameters of our discussion within this, without having to address how this relates to my christian beliefs.

[vulcanlogician]



In my view it’s not like logic, it is like Truth. Logic, and reason may be used to discern what’s is True or what is Good, but is not truth or good itself, which exists independently of logic. To say it’s similar to logic, is like suggesting a shovel used to dig gold out of a ditch, is like gold itself.

But then we agree, don't we? Logic is a tool with which can unearth the Truth. The truth is that the Good exists. Logic can carry you from not knowing the Good to knowing the Good. Knowing the Good leads to doing good actions. Doing good actions is what we call moral or virtuous behavior.

Unless you think that theists are the only ones capable of using logic, why is religion necessary? What keeps an atheist from knowing the Good?

Since you quoted from the Republic, I assume you know that Plato gives a plentitude of reasons one is motivated to be good simply through knowledge of goodness itself. A theist might point to Books IX and X because they found arguments on the immortality of the soul. But the rest of the the Republic does not. Therefore, an atheist can accept those reasons as much as any theist. And even Books IX and X can be problematic for a Christian (if you're going to take Plato literally there) because his notion of the soul's immortality assumes reincarnation.

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay, then allow me to be a defender of moral nihilism.

As a moral nihilist ( the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong) I hold that the holocaust is not inherently right nor wrong. Neither good nor evil.

That at best what you and other's consider good is your subjective opinion, and not a fact.

The moral realist claims that holocaust is objectively wrong.

The nihilist responds that's it not.

What facts is the nihilist denying, to be false in your view?

Moral nihilists deny the existence of moral facts themselves...reducing that to a silly question.  No matter what moral fact there is or may be, a moral nihilist must, by necessity..deny it.

The "just an opinion" route is a dead end as well. Yes, it's my opinion. I have opinions you have opinions we all have opinions. I have opinions about the sky..the number 1.......and mouth brooding fish. Some opinions are about facts, and some opinions about facts get things more or less wrong than others.

"Just an opinion" is moral subjectivism, not moral nihilism. This is..possibly, one of the reasons that philosophy majors might actually make better role models..when it comes to communicating moral predicates and concepts..at least.

Nihilism. - No moral facts.
Subjectivism - Moral facts are non-moral facts regarding an individual.
Relativism - Moral facts are non moral facts regarding a culture or situation an individual finds oneself in.

Would you prefer objective naturalism or non-naturalism..btw? Plato was expressing a strong variant of non natural realism...we can run with that, but, in my experience..it's frustrating for the other party.

(you drew shit cards on this morality thing between vulcan and I..btw....condolences, lol)

[Acrobat]

Okay, then allow me to be a defender of moral nihilism.

As a moral nihilist ( the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong) I hold that the holocaust is not inherently right nor wrong. Neither good nor evil.

That at best what you and other's consider good is your subjective opinion, and not a fact.

The moral realist claims that holocaust is objectively wrong.

The nihilist responds that's it not.

What facts is the nihilist denying, to be false in your view?

Moral nihilists deny the existence of moral facts themselves...reducing that to a silly question.  No matter what moral fact there is or may be, a moral nihilist must, by necessity..deny it.

The "just an opinion" route is a dead end as well. Yes, it's my opinion. I have opinions you have opinions we all have opinions. I have opinions about the sky..the number 1.......and mouth brooding fish. Some opinions are about facts, and some opinions about facts get things more or less wrong than others.

"Just an opinion" is moral subjectivism, not moral nihilism. This is..possibly, one of the reasons that philosophy majors might actually make better role models..when it comes to communicating moral predicates and concepts..at least.

How exactly is the moral nihilist wrong, and the moral realist right?

[The Grand Nudger]

In the same way that anyone is ever wrong or right?

If I say something is hard and you say it's soft....we don't have an impenetrable mystery here before us. Just knuckle up and hit the fuckin thing.

[Acrobat]

h


In my view it’s not like logic, it is like Truth. Logic, and reason may be used to discern what’s is True or what is Good, but is not truth or good itself, which exists independently of logic. To say it’s similar to logic, is like suggesting a shovel used to dig gold out of a ditch, is like gold itself.

But then we agree, don't we? Logic is a tool with which can unearth the Truth. The truth is that the Good exists. Logic can carry you from not knowing the Good to knowing the Good. Knowing the Good leads to doing good actions. Doing good actions is what we call moral or virtuous behavior.

Unless you think that theists are the only ones capable of using logic, why is religion necessary? What keeps an atheist from knowing the Good?

A few things here,

Good is an external reality, that tells us that we ought to be Good, endows moral obligations and duties upon us, served as its own moral authority. Sounds very much like a God to me, but not to you?

In fact in Plato’s conception the Good is the author of everything beautiful and right.

Secondly, knowing the Good, might be needed to do Good, but doesn’t in and of itself. A thief knows that stealing is wrong but steals anyway, the man cheating on his wife knows adultery is wrong but does it anyway.

Or as Paul might put it: “For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.”

[vulcanlogician]

A few things here,

Good is an external reality, that tells us that we ought to be Good, endows moral obligations and duties upon us, served as its own moral authority. Sounds very much like a God to me, but not to you?

In fact in Plato’s conception the Good is the author of everything beautiful and right.

Okay. Plato is talking about the sun in the line you quoted, not God. (Though the sun is a metaphor for the form of the Good). The Jowett translation (though poetic in places) has some confusing language in it.

Here is the same line from a different translation (G.M.A. Grube):

"And at this point he would infer and conclude that the sun provides the seasons and the years, governs everything in the visible world, and is in some way the cause of all the things he used to see."

Let's unpack this a bit. The "he" to which Plato refers is the one who has escaped the confines of the cave. Before, he was unaware of the influence of the sun on the phenomena that he perceived to be real when he was trapped inside the cave. Now that he has left the cave (and seen the sun) he knows that many (and in a way, ALL) of the things he used to see were, in fact caused by the sun.

The thing to remember is, what he (the escapee) took to be real before was not real. When he leaves the cave, he not only begins to realize what he saw before was an illusion, he also sees the Truth behind the illusion. He sees the reality that created all that smoke and mirrors which he (formerly) took to be real.

PS: Are you avoiding the Euthyphro argument?

[EgoDeath]

It’s really not a huge mystery. Humans are a cooperative species in that we have to work with one another in order to survive. Helping you is helping me and vice versa. It does sound like a bit of a cynical way to see the world but that’s just how it is. We all want to survive and perpetuate the species, so we all help one another do so. My selfish, inherent need to pass on my gene pool causes me to do things that help you pass on your gene pool. We all cooperate so we all get to survive.

It’s honestly not some huge mystery.

[Acrobat]

A few things here,

Good is an external reality, that tells us that we ought to be Good, endows moral obligations and duties upon us, served as its own moral authority. Sounds very much like a God to me, but not to you?

In fact in Plato’s conception the Good is the author of everything beautiful and right.

Okay. Plato is talking about the sun in the line you quoted, not God. (Though the sun is a metaphor for the form of the Good). The Jowett translation (though poetic in places) has some confusing language in it.

I wasn’t quoting the metaphorical portion of the allegory here, but the closing portion, where Pluto explains the meaning of his allegory:

“ in the world of knowledge the idea of Good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.”

While Plato doesn’t refer to the Good as God, his description of it, posses a variety of God like qualities, like the author of all things beautiful and right, etc..

PS: Are you avoiding the Euthyphro argument?

I felt I’ve addressed it a few times when others appealed to some version of it.

But I’ll say it again. The answer to his dilemma is neither.

The good isn’t something that God commands, god is the Good. It is this Goodness that’s commands us in and of itself.

[vulcanlogician]

“ in the world of knowledge the idea of Good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.”

"Is seen with an effort"...? Is Plato referring to the "effort" it takes to believe a dogma when it is presented to you? Or is he referring to something else?