Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 9, 2024, 7:27 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Atheism and Ethics
RE: Atheism and Ethics
I think I'm a credible authority on what I'm talking about when I use a word. So, If I say I'm talking about a thing that contains x with a word y..and you say..no..the thing you're talking about with the word y does not contain the thing x...it's pretty clear we aren't talking about the same thing. Pretty basic. I mean..If we both use the word cat to refer to different things then it's clear we aren't talking about the same thing when we say cat..right? Is it just my opinion that what I'm talking about when I say cat is a small mammal with a tail and whiskers that goes meow all over the internet? No.

Like usual, I'm fine with giving the word to whomever thinks this is a hill to die on. Moral content by any other name, and all that. Your hypothetical morality with no harm content can be called morality and we'll call my hypothetical fleefarpity with harm content fleefarp. While we're at it, I say we stop using cat and start using bastard for the small mammals with tails and whiskers that go meow all over the internet.

Long story short, at this level, it doesn't even make sense to say "that's just, like, your opinion" - because we're just defining terms and clarifying what we're talking about.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Atheism and Ethics
(July 17, 2024 at 6:40 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Indeed, and I'd agree it is objectively harmful, but I am dubious it is objectively true that harming someone is immoral? I think that is a subjective opinion, one I share of course. Also need I point out that not everyone shares that opinion.
Well, that's good.  It's nice to have some point of agreement to build on.  So, at least descriptively, we should be able to agree that when I tell you why a thing is good or bad in this case I'm referring to facts of the matter itself.  I'm not saying "x is bad because of some fact about me" or "x is bad because of some fact about my society" - I'm saying "x is bad because of some fact about x".  We together this far?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Atheism and Ethics
(July 18, 2024 at 3:57 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:
(July 17, 2024 at 6:40 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Indeed, and I'd agree it is objectively harmful, but I am dubious it is objectively true that harming someone is immoral? I think that is a subjective opinion, one I share of course. Also need I point out that not everyone shares that opinion.
Well, that's good.  It's nice to have some point of agreement to build on.  So, at least descriptively, we should be able to agree that when I tell you why a thing is good or bad in this case I'm referring to facts of the matter itself.  I'm not saying "x is bad because of some fact about me" or "x is bad because of some fact about my society" - I'm saying "x is bad because of some fact about x".  We together this far?
So What I mean is that our basis for morality is subjective, I don't think it can be otherwise, for example in this instance we both think harming someone unnecessarily is wrong, we could both say why if asked, but the idea it is wrong isn't true in any objective way. As you say, once we both hold the subjective view that harming someone unnecessarily is wrong, then we can make objective assertions about actions that violate our subjective moral worldview.

Parenthetically, because we hold the subjective view harming someone unnecessarily is wrong, we would both be able to say objectively that rape is wrong, as it is an objective fact it causes lasting trauma. We could of course point out that we wouldn't want anyone harming us unnecessarily, and infer it is likely most people feel the same way, but we cannot say it is objectively wrong to harm anyone. 

I can see why this notion scares a lot of people, but there is no objective evidence to suggest that when we understand that our morality involves a subjective choice, we become any "less moral" on any level playing field.

I would far prefer the world was populated by people who questioned moral choices carefully, than people who were taught or indoctrinated to accept unquestioningly that X is wrong and Y is right. At the risk of fulfilling Godwin's law, even a "good Nazis" can blindly follow rules. The parallels between religious indoctrination are of course hard to miss, the misogyny, homophobia, racism and bigotry it has peddled as immutable truths, has cause incalculable harm, and still is. 

NB religions evolve and improve only if adherents are willing to set aside what they teach, when that conflicts with their own subjective moral worldview. It's not all bad news of course, as like other species that have evolved to live in societal groups, we have evolved to be empathetic, any species that evolved to live in societal groups would also necessarily have to know and be able to learn what were and were not acceptable behaviours to that group, it is likely the precursor to human morality we now see, which has had a leg up from us evolving a problem solving brain, and the extra time we have to examine complex moral choices, that our ancestors did not, courtesy of the agricultural and then industrial revolutions.
Reply
RE: Atheism and Ethics
(July 18, 2024 at 1:37 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I think I'm a credible authority on what I'm talking about when I use a word.  So, If I say I'm talking about a thing that contains x with a word y..and you say..no..the thing you're talking about with the word y does not contain the thing x...it's pretty clear we aren't talking about the same thing.  Pretty basic.  I mean..If we both use the word cat to refer to different things then it's clear we aren't talking about the same thing when we say cat..right?  Is it just my opinion that what I'm talking about when I say cat is a small mammal with a tail and whiskers that goes meow all over the internet?  No.

Like usual, I'm fine with giving the word to whomever thinks this is a hill to die on.  Moral content by any other name, and all that.  Your hypothetical morality with no harm content can be called morality and we'll call my hypothetical fleefarpity with harm content fleefarp.  While we're at it, I say we stop using cat and start using bastard for the small mammals with tails and whiskers that go meow all over the internet.

Long story short, at this level, it doesn't even make sense to say "that's just, like, your opinion" - because we're just defining terms and clarifying what we're talking about.

From a personal standpoint, I don't find you a credible authority on that. FYI.

You're conflating facts and explanations. A person who subscribes to relativity might explain gravity as being a curvature of spacetime, whereas a flat earther might explain gravity as the result of the earth accelerating underneath people on the surface. In a truly pedantic sense, yes they are not talking about the same thing, but at the end of the day, their common referent is the phenomenon of acceleration experienced by objects on the surface of the earth, aka gravity. FYI I never said that morality did not involve harm, only that it was not essential. I don't know whether you simply misread or whether you simply don't understand Moore's fallacy, but whatever it is, what you took away from my statement was not an accurate comprehension of what I said. When we talk about morals, we are talking about the facts of moral perception and moral judgment. That your explanation of those facts differs from mine does not in anyway indicate that we are not talking about the same thing, except in the anally pedantic sense mentioned earlier. I don't know whether you are incapable of seeing the distinction between your theory of morals and the facts of morals -- unintelligent people frequently aren't capable of said distinction -- or whether you've simply failed to think rigorously. Regardless, your contention that we are not talking about the same thing is wrong, IMNHO.

(ETA: It occurs to me that what Harris said is an example of what Dennett calls a deepity. Something that, in a trivial and unimportant sense is true, but which on the level of a profundity is not. It seems as if you've embarked on a quest to abet one of Harris' many species of caustic rhetoric as if it were a profundity when it is not. I can only suggest that this makes you look silly. Hell, quoting Harris at all in a discussion of morality makes you look silly, but that is a discussion for another day.)
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
RE: Atheism and Ethics
I'm not claiming that Sam Harris is very educated on moral philosophy, but I do think he has also been widely misunderstood. For example, I've seen many of his critics say he violates Hume's is-ought problem but insofar as I can tell he does not.
Schopenhauer Wrote:The intellect has become free, and in this state it does not even know or understand any other interest than that of truth.

Epicurus Wrote:The greatest reward of righteousness is peace of mind.

Epicurus Wrote:Don't fear god,
Don't worry about death;

What is good is easy to get,

What is terrible is easy to endure
Reply
RE: Atheism and Ethics
(July 18, 2024 at 9:11 am)Disagreeable Wrote: I'm not claiming that Sam Harris is very educated on moral philosophy, but I do think he has also been widely misunderstood.

I haven't read any of his recent work, so I cannot judge.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
RE: Atheism and Ethics
(July 18, 2024 at 8:45 am)Angrboda Wrote: From a personal standpoint, I don't find you a credible authority on that.  FYI.

Then there's nothing left for us to talk about and no point to do it in the first place.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Atheism and Ethics
(July 18, 2024 at 11:33 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:
(July 18, 2024 at 8:45 am)Angrboda Wrote: From a personal standpoint, I don't find you a credible authority on that.  FYI.

Then there's nothing left for us to talk about and no point to do it in the first place.

Wah! Wah! Wah! Want me to call you a wambulance?
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
RE: Atheism and Ethics



TLDR version.
When I say that I'm a moral realist who believes in metaethical objectivity this is not an endorsement of our various rules and traditions and religions as moral objectivity.  I also see them as subjective (and other things) and..like you seem to be implying in these comments, I think there's something wrong/improper/incorrect/imprudent about uncritically accepting them or acting on them.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Atheism and Ethics
(July 18, 2024 at 9:11 am)Disagreeable Wrote: I'm not claiming that Sam Harris is very educated on moral philosophy, but I do think he has also been widely misunderstood. For example, I've seen many of his critics say he violates Hume's is-ought problem but insofar as I can tell he does not.

I'm going to hazard a guess that Harris has had an outsized influence on Nudger's thoughts on morality, and having had his bon mot irreverently criticized, rather than address those criticisms, Nudger has chosen instead to retreat, all butthurt and surly.
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ethics of Neutrality John 6IX Breezy 16 2293 November 20, 2023 at 8:40 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Ethics of Fashion John 6IX Breezy 60 5646 August 9, 2022 at 3:11 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  [Serious] Ethics Disagreeable 44 5568 March 23, 2022 at 7:09 pm
Last Post: deepend
  Machine Intelligence and Human Ethics BrianSoddingBoru4 24 2782 May 28, 2019 at 1:23 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  What is the point of multiple types of ethics? Macoleco 12 1592 October 2, 2018 at 12:35 pm
Last Post: robvalue
  Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics vulcanlogician 150 22142 January 30, 2018 at 11:01 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  (LONG) "I Don't Know" as a Good Answer in Ethics vulcanlogician 69 11496 November 27, 2017 at 1:10 am
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  what are you ethics based on justin 50 18261 February 24, 2017 at 8:30 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  The Compatibility Of Three Approachs To Ethics Edwardo Piet 18 3919 October 2, 2016 at 5:23 am
Last Post: Kernel Sohcahtoa
  Utilitarianism and Population Ethics Edwardo Piet 10 2125 April 24, 2016 at 3:45 am
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 9 Guest(s)