FFT: Gender as a social construct — what is the vid below telling us on where our intellectual culture has now reached?

_{kairosfocus

June 10, 2017

Academic Freedom, Evolutionary Incoherence, Logic and Reason, rhetoric, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Someone gave the link, I think we need to watch a comparison of real vs fake papers on gender:

I ask us to ponder:

Where have we now reached, why? END

Comments

KF @533 -- Again, yes, I agree that the terms 'kidnapping,' 'indecent assault,' and 'murder' are proper terms relevant to the real-world case. Based on your description of events, the terms are entirely appropriate. This is not under dispute. But as I have also said, the self-evident moral truth of the test case can only be seen through the use of morally-charged language. Indeed, you can guess immediately some of the options that the defense in the case will explore. They may dispute some or all of the actions (i.e., that they took place in the way presented or that the accused did some/all). They may seek to discredit the victim or cast the victim as having some culpability. Finally, the defense may seek to argue that the defendant did not mean to commit the crime as it happened. Or maybe they suggest that the defendant was not in a state to distinguish right and wrong behavior. Obviously, I am not trying at all to litigate the case. I am not a lawyer and know zero about the case except for what you have said. Yet, were the defense to have any facts that could be interpreted in the ways I suggest, then it becomes possible that a real-life jury might view the case in a different moral light. Bruce Lee's character in Enter the Dragon says "boards don't hit back" after his martial arts opponent splits some wooden planks as a way to intimidate Lee before their match. The same principle seems to apply to the test case, in the sense that it's one thing for a prosecutor to create a case whose moral truth is self-evident...until the defense lawyer gets a chance to make a counter case. Then we are back to our regular, morally ambiguous space. You say that the test case -- that is, the morally-charged and one-sided test case -- "reveals the absurdity of nihilism and related positions." I suppose the case, as presented, does reveal this. I don't know any moral nihilists personally and cannot guess what you think are the "related positions," that is, the moral philosophies related to nihilism. Certainly, Ruse and Wilson seem not to take one of the objectionable positions. Maybe you mean that Foucault-inspired, poststructuralist academic studies -- such as gender studies -- are morally nihilistic or related to nihilism. If that's your claim, then evidence and support are needed to bolster it. Moral nihilism seems far afield from the subject discussed in the OP video. In the end, and accounting for my own obtuseness, I don't see at all that our discussion has illuminated any "certain moral principles are objective," unless we mean that such principles are provided in charged language from only a single point of view.LarTanner_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Pindi
JDK mentioned the misty rain and dry dusty road. I already mentioned hot tarmac in the sun that caused any drop of rain to instantly evaporate on contact.
We have already been over this. If you describe the mental framework such that it accurately reflects conditions in the real world, then the two will always correspond. If you keep changing the real world conditions without adjusting the mental framework to reflect that change, then you are laboring over a meaningless exercise in futility. If we understand the cause in the real world the same way we understand the cause in the mental framework, then the cause/effect relationship in the mind will reflect the cause/effect relationship in the real world.StephenB_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

excuse typo on the planets: "of whose existence I was previously *unaware*StephenB_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

jdk
But Stephen, how did you even know that Jupiter and Saturn were planets? And how did you know they weren’t different names for the same object?
Good question. Really! In this context, the only thing I know from reason's principles (logic alone) is that all objects in the real world with an identity of any kind cannot also be another object with another identify. So, if you present to me two planets (Jupiter and Saturn), of whose existence I was previously [UN-]aware, then I can tell you, on the basis of logic alone, that they cannot both be the same planet. So I am telling you something new about the real world based on logic alone, namely that those two planets cannot share the same identity. Now, let's take if farther out to deal with your specific issue: Can I, on the strength of logic alone, tell you that these two planets exist? Absolutely not.StephenB_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

MS: I find it a little odd to be lumped in as part of Christians who are deemed one and all incapable of laying out detailed frameworks of ethics, presumably including grounding. I suggest that while many everyday Christians you encounter may not have taken particular time and focus to elaborate a complex system of ethics, there are entire volumes that address ethics and morality as philosophical, theological and professional concerns, in considerable details. While I have not had occasion to do such, here is where I addressed the objectivity and basic grounding of same as part of a wider worldviews discussion: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_morals While I am at it, here is a paper I presented as an invited public ethics lecture for a leading Evangelical seminary in the Caribbean, which was published in slightly revised form in a regional Journal of Theology. Popping over by a bookshelf, I note Carl F H Henry's Christian Personal Ethics, Baker reprint from Eerdman's, 1977, 615 pp as just one sampler; this lays out a considerable discussion of just what you seem to imagine does not exist. Where of course, a major focus of the Sermon on the Mount is ethical though in a Hebraic context rather than a philosophical one. And, there are many other works. I trust these will help you t6o begin your rethinking on these matters. KFkairosfocus_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

StephenB, way to deliberately miss the point. I didn't mean the pavement. The streets could be so narrow it's necessary to cover them when painting. Anyway, one could think of multiple examples of when your statement would not be true in the real world. JDK mentioned the misty rain and dry dusty road. I already mentioned hot tarmac in the sun that caused any drop of rain to instantly evaporate on contact. Maybe its the future and the streets are made with a material that repels water like a duck's feathers. Maybe the rain turns to hail before it hits the road. You need to admit that logic can't be used to determine the truth or falsity of this statement. And move on.Pindi_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Lar Tanner,
In the first sense, you can see why Ruse and Wilson say “evolutionary reasoning emphatically does not lead to moral relativism.” It’s because of this shared moral sense, this natural illusion that morals are externally grounded.
If Darwinian evolution is true, then humans are accidents and have no purpose or enduring nature. Without purpose and nature, there is no such thing as good or bad, or moral or immoral. The absence of purpose leads to moral relativism.
You can agree or disagree – and in whole or in part – with Ruse and Wilson, but subjective morality in the first sense is the opposite of disdaining reason and clearly not the absence of morality.
Subjective morality is unreasonable because it militates against the very thing that morality is supposed to do – explain and justify a proper code of behavior that applies to all human beings. This standard is possible only in the context of purpose. Only on condition that we know what a human being is (nature) and [later in the analysis] is for (destiny) can we establish the morality of human behavior. The point about purpose is easily made by making a comparison to things that are not human. What is an automobile radiator supposed to do? It is supposed to cool the engine. That is why it was made. The nature of a carburetor, on the other hand, is to blend air and fuel. Notice that in both cases, nature and purpose are tied together. Each auto part is “good” only insofar as it functions properly, which means it operates the way it was designed and intended to operate. A "bad" part is one that does not function properly. Suppose we give the carburetor an intellect and will and it decides to become a subjectivist. No tyrannical manufacturer is going to assign it a purpose from the outside because it has declared, subjectively, that it would prefer to take on a new role – to cool the engine. Obviously, that will not end well, either for the carburetor or the automobile. So it is with humans and their proper function. If they have no human nature, then there can be no morality of human nature and there can be no such thing as “good” or “bad” behavior since there would be no created nature to violate-- no ultimate purpose to frustrate--no moral direction from which to deviate. Under the circumstances, the human being may feel free to assume the nature and morality of a wild animal. Like a carburetor that tries to act like a radiator, it will not end well. A good human being, therefore, is one that acts according to his nature (some would say, rightly, "created nature," but that is a step up from the natural moral law). It is total nonsense for a hyperskeptical philosopher to say that we can carry on with the “illusion” of externally based morality. If he characterizes it an illusion, he will not take it seriously, and it will certainly not bind his conscience. How could it when evolution will change its contents from one era to the next?
Concerning the second sense of subjective morality, as someone’s philosophy for making moral decisions and evaluating the behavior of others, you are being uncharitable.
I am being realistic.
Like any other moral philosophy, they ultimately concern what should or should not be done by moral people. To judge moral subjectivity as the absence of morality is, to me, dismissive of the very reason why people explore and hold such philosophies in the first place.
Subjective morality is the absence of morality because it does not have the power to universally bind the conscience. Indeed, it makes a mockery of the very idea. When someone fashions his own moral code, he is not being bound by his conscience, he is attempting to break free of it.StephenB_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

JDK "Well, vivid, I’m glad you think it is obvious, but I don’t think it was obvious to me that it was obvious to you when you asked the question, " You did not think it was obvious to me that there is a "we" or "existence" in order to apply logic? LOL Vividvividbleau_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

JDK What's on my mind is what WJM articulated in 528 "At the end of the day ,we have no means by which to arbit our differences..." Thus my question, can logic tell us what MUST be false? What's the point in discussing things if we have no way to falsify something? Honestly after reading all your posts I am still unclear if your answer is yes. For sure you value logic but if your position leads to logical absurdities MUST your position be determined to be "falsified "? Vivid .vividbleau_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Well, vivid, I'm glad you think it is obvious, but I don't think it was obvious to me that it was obvious to you when you asked the question, "Can logic tell us what is false?", which was a following up about worldviews. I see way too may instances of people drawing the "logical" conclusion that something is false without understanding the points I was making. You probably had something on your mind when you asked your original question about worldviews, but I don't know what it was, and probably think we should let the whole thing go.jdk_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

MS: Thinktank: http://christianthinktank.com/ Form for submitting questions: http://christianthinktank.com/tuffq.html William Lane Craig: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ WLC's QA forum: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer Notice his reply to a grieving father: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/letter-from-a-grieving-father KF PS: Sorry, I might have taken time to use my own blog but I am dealing with a doubly extra busy time here. Hence BTW how spotty my comments are in this thread. PPS: While Thinktank is not the easiest of sites to search, this may be close to the question you raised above: http://christianthinktank.com/killheir.htmlkairosfocus_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

JDK My intent was not to misrepresent I just found the "by itself" to be superfluous. "All applications to logic in the real world involve some kind of empirical experience ..." This is so stunningly obvious that I just have to roll my eyes that you are making a big deal that I omitted "by itself". "By itself" adds nothing to the discussion and I assumed others would take for granted that there is a "we" and a "world". Anyway I did not mean to misrepresent your position even though I think its a sideshow,and as to the core of the discussion, nothing was misrepresented other than to those readers who dont think there is a "we" or a "world" Regardless I did not quote you correctly and I do apologize for that. Vividvividbleau_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

MS (& thanks WJM): I think you would profit from WJM at 520 on SET's:
Your response seems to conflate various religious and “heartfelt” beliefs with the term “self-evident truth”. It is apparent from this comment that you don’t understand what a “self-evident truth” means, even though it has been explained to you. This is why, IMO, you don’t understand and reject many of the answers you get on this subject. I think you want or expect “self-evident truth” to mean “A heartfelt belief based on religious writings”. That’s not what it means. A=A is a self-evident truth that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or “heartfelt belief”. So is “I exist” and “1+1=2”. Even after having this explicitly explained to you, your conflation and confusion continues in your comment immediately following the explanation: ISIS all the way. It is as self evidently true to them that Shia should be murdered as it is self evidently true to you that they shouldn’t. Only an objective morality can decide which opinion (because that’s all your beliefs are, no matter how mightily you believe them) is truly moral. Here you are conflating a “command-authority theistic order” with a “self-evident truth”. I do not doubt that many ISIS followers have “heartfelt belief” that it is okay to torture and kill innocent children. Religious fervor and emotion are very dangerous commodities, especially when one is dealing with a command-authority theism like the current form of Islam which formally rejects logic as an arbiter of right action. Your erroneous understanding of “self-evident truth” and conflation of that concept with “heartfelt” or “deeply held religious” belief seems to be what is causing most of your confusion about what KF and others here are saying when they explain their moral system structure to you. You also seem to have a particular animus about Christianity and the Bible that seeps into and weirdly affect every exchange. You might look into that. Thats correct. You can’t reason a man out of an opinion he didn’t reason himself into. Do you understand that all reasoning begins with self-evident truths?
Until you sort out SET's in general, you will not be able to understand what a moral SET is, even when it is presented and explained over and over again. WJM is right that SET's stand at the base of responsible, reasoned discussion, starting with distinct identity, from which the triple first principles of right reason stand. For an in a nutshell, I clip from 473:
Self-evident truth: claims which, once one understands i/l/o appropriate experience of the world, will be seen as true, as necessarily true, and this on pain of PATENT absurdity on the attempted denial. Not to be confused with being obvious, widely acknowledged, widely understood, true by definition, an assumption, etc.
For example, error exists [call this E] is self-evident, not just a matter of fact. As a very simple way, try to deny it, ~E. Once a proposition exists, its negation also exists. and of course E AND ~E = 0, so one or the other is false, is an error. Inspection tells us the false claim is ~E. Simple, and yet this instantly overturns any scheme of thought that denies that truth exists or that knowable truth exists. By counter-example. And of course once we have a distinct entity A, this contrasts with ~A, and the first principles of right reason are immediately present: law of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction. Though, of course some above are belabouring all sorts of arguments that distract from the obvious result that if a scheme S includes or implies as core constituents X and Y where Y = ~X, then S is self-refuting, self-falsifying. Thus, we can see that the logic of coming to a contradiction like that allows us to see that S is false. KFkairosfocus_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

LT, I suggest, again, that kidnapping, indecent assault and murder are proper terms relevant to the unfortunately real world case. The events came first, these terms describe them much as the police investigation would have and much as a very shaken university community did. The case tests whether we are willing to acknowledge that manifest evil that reveals the absurdity of nihilism and related positions is indeed evil, and whether we are willing to acknowledge that to try to deny that this is evil lands us in patent absurdity. This is how we see self-evident moral truth through a concrete case. This then allows us to see that certain moral principles are objective and can guide our wider moral reasoning. KFkairosfocus_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

MS, I see you are still trying to drag the thread (which already has huge issues to deal with) into a discussion you would better carry out at say William Lane Craig's site or the like, where it would be in accord with the main focus. Here, it mostly serves as a rhetorically toxic distraction. I will not go off on a tangent, but will point out that there are places where if you really want an answer, you could easily go. Without going into details, I suggest that there are significant gaps in what you see and reason from; I have already pointed to Eisenhower's dilemma as giving an inkling on how such issues can play out. Besides, reasoning about moral issues (just as for any other serious matter) pivots on getting first things in order first. The thread above, unfortunately, is in large part a case study on persistent refusal to do so. I suggest, therefore, that if you are serious about the sort of talking points you have raised, you should take them to appropriate venues. KF PS: On the general problem of evil vs good I suggest here as a start. PPS: I have identified accurately patterns of error in argument you have repeatedly indulged, and have in effect asked for their correction. Where, for instance you have utterly misrepresented arguments I have made regarding the IS-OUGHT gap, and have used that to inject a line of rhetoric targetting Christians that is indeed classically the style of argument of village atheists; which has latterly been trumpeted far and wide by the so-called new atheists. It is thus significant that you seem to be refusing to acknowledge the correction and move on to repeat the pattern, again a further familiar pattern: doubling down. I suggest that you need to reconsider.kairosfocus_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

But Stephen, how did you even know that Jupiter and Saturn were planets? And how did you know they weren't different names for the same object? Without knowing something about what Jupiter and Saturn refer to you are doing nothing more than saying something like "If gsagjj and hajhdah are different sahgsajhgalj's, than they aren't the same sahgsajhgal," which is logically correct but has no real world reference or meaning. But I'll leave it at that, and I think my statements above about the use of logic and math are correct. Maybe vivid will return and respond, as he is the one who brought the subject up.jdk_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

to wjm: Then I assume we are on the same page about the foundations of logic.jdk_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

jdk
All applications of logic to the real world involve some kind of empirical experience to be the content of the propositions to which we wish to apply logic. b) Logic, by itself, cannot tell us what is true or false about the real world.
Yes, I understand that this was your argument. I was not relying on vivid’s characterization, and I agree with you that his was not exactly the same as yours. In both my examples, I used logic *by itself* to draw conclusions about the real world. Without observing the real world, I asserted that “If it rains, the streets will get wet.” This is a true statement about the real world that requires no empirical verification, (understanding that streets do not necessarily mean “the pavement,” which was Pindi’s distraction). Again, without observing the real world, I deduced that Saturn and Jupiter cannot both be the same planet. So the question is, how can I do that without making an empirical investigation? First, recall that the law of non-contradiction is not merely logical and psychological, it also has an ontological component called the law of identity. In other words, it applies to both the mental and the extra-mental world. If it didn’t, it would be a perfectly useless tool for thinking.
A very large part of our experience starts with this idea of distinct identity of things.
Absolutely correct.
But in Stephen’s second example, Jupiter and Saturn are clearly distinct objects, an A and a B, so the logical conclusion A cannot also be B is true. But note: even this simple example illustrates my point that “Everything else [outside of purely abstract systems] involves some kind of empirical experience to be the content of the propositions to which we wish to apply logic.”
On the contrary, I used logic, by itself, to draw my conclusions. I made no appeal to empirical observation in any way. So, how is that possible? It works this way: The empirical experience is already built in to the system of logic by means of its foundations; the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and causation, all of which are self-evident truths about the real world grounded in real world experience (aposterior, not apriori). This is no leap of faith; it is genuine knowledge in the form of self-evident truths. So when I say that Jupiter and Saturn cannot possibly have the same identity, I know that by means of the self-evident truths of logic, which are grounded in real world experience. I need no further knowledge of the real world because the laws of logic are both mental and extramental. That is why they always correspond. That is also why sound arguments (not merely valid arguments) are possible. If the laws of logic did not correspond perfectly to the laws of the real world, a sound argument would not be possible.
We know Jupiter and Saturn are distinct entities because of empirical experience. Therefore the very basic model of mapping Jupiter to A and Saturn to B, and then applying logic, works.
It has nothing to do with mapping anything. It is pure logic. I know that Jupiter and Saturn cannot be the same planet because the law of identity is infallibly true. It appears that you do not accept the law of identify, because if you did, you would not also say that it needs verification in order to be true. You would already know that it is always true regardless of application and circumstances.StephenB_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

jdk said:
I think the term “self-evident” can be misused when applied to less foundational ideas in other areas, as my example of geometry was meant to point out.
Of course it can be misused - that's the entire point I'm making to MatSpirit; he's misunderstanding what the term "self-evident truth" means. It doesn't mean "deeply held belief". And what I'm pointing out to you is that no matter what you prefer to call them - axioms, truths, etc. - all reasoning begins with them. If someone denies that A=A or 1+1=2, that doesn't make such truths/axioms less of a self-evident truth, nor does it make them less than a "necessary axiom"; it just means that person is denying a self-evident truth. They may honestly believe that 1+1=5, but we generally consider people that believe or claim such things to be either foolish or irrational. Just because ISIS believes it is morally good to torture and murder children doesn't render the statement "it is wrong to torture and murder children" any less self-evidently true. We rightly consider anyone who makes such a claim as ISIS to be either wicked or insane. There is no way to "prove" it or to "argue" for it, just as there is no way to "prove" or "argue" that A=A. One either recognizes that truth, or they do not. So, when one says that "Self evident moral truths don’t cut the mustard." as MatSpirit said, then one is left entirely without any significant basis for any form of rational morality. If we don't begin with one or more self-evidently true moral statement, there's nothing to reason from. At that point all we can be picking from is our personal preference - even if it is a personal preference of objective commodities to base our morality on, it's still just a preference. MS might prefer the golden rule; I might prefer "might makes right". At the end of the day, we have no means by which to arbit our differences because neither of us would be referring to a binding self-evident truth we both recognize which would demand that we be open to reasoning from that truth or set of truths in arbiting our differences. Without self-evident moral truths to work from, there's no reasoning unless we just happen to both prefer the same starting point. I don't prefer the golden rule - seriously. I'd rather just do whatever I think best serves my personal interests. After all, there's no real reason to adhere to the golden rule if you think your personal interests would be better served doing something else. Unless morality carries with it necessary consequences, it really just boils down to a bunch of potential repercussions that may or may not occur. Heck, you could do immoral stuff all day long and your life could get better and better; under MatSpirit's view, who knows what might happen? His system operates largely off of what might be, for all we know, empty threat and baseless intimidation. Not really much of a moral system, if you ask me.William J Murray_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

#518
Most people don’t know what semiosis is. I had to look it up myself. Do you actually believe that the first living thing used DNA or some other material symbolically?
The minimum requirement for the origin of the gene system is established by what is physically necessary to record and translate the amount of information that the system needs to successfully describe itself in memory. The organization of that system (which requires symbols and translation) was predicted to exist, and later confirmed by experiment. Awards were presented. You may ask yourself if the source of that system (whatever you believe it to be) was required to specify it.Upright BiPed_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

KF @478 – As I say to SB in a just-posted comment, the thread has moved past our conversation. I’ll consider this comment a final reply to the points you make directly to me. I realize the test case draws from a real and pending set of events – you say so in comment 436. You posed the question to me about whether I consider the test case a self-evident instance of evil. I answered yes, but I also observed that your case does not really give a choice. Because the words used include “evil” within their fundamental definitions, the test case essentially asks, “Are evil actions evil?” In other words, the self-evidence of evil draws entirely from the terms used in the case. This is why I offered an alternative test case, even though I understood the point you were making in the original. My overall question to you was whether the moral status of the alternative case could definitively be determined when the language was not helping to guide our view. The answer, of course, is no. We need additional information – such as whom or what was affected by the action under examination, and such as the intentions of the perpetrator. The logical follow-on is whether the existence of external moral grounding is called into question by the necessity of having cultural/social attitudes available.LarTanner_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

wjm, you write,
So yes, all reasoning begins with self-evident truths. You cannot prove the validity of the principles of logic.
I agree that you can't prove the principles of logic. We can call the beginning principles of logic axioms, postulates, or assumptions, and consider them so basic and unquestionable that they are self-evident, but axioms is perhaps the most formally correct word. Calling A = A and similar axioms of logic "self-evident" is OK with me, but I think the term "self-evident" can be misused when applied to less foundational ideas in other areas, as my example of geometry was meant to point out.jdk_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

jdk, To reason about "different assumptions" requires the self-evident truths we refer to as the principles of logic. Without them, you don't have reasoning. So yes, all reasoning begins with self-evident truths. You cannot prove the validity of the principles of logic; you use them to prove (or disprove)0 the validity of other claims. As you just did in your post where you tried to drew a distinction between "self-evident truths" and "assumptions". You don't begin reasoning with an assumption, jdk, you begin reasoning with the principles of logic. Otherwise, you can't even distinguish an "assumption" from a "conclusion".William J Murray_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

SB @477 – The thread has moved past our conversation, so for my part I’ll consider this a final reply to the points you made directly to me. You say –
the point of the test case is to show that we can know something about the natural moral law without receiving formal or religious instruction. Sometimes, the evil in question is self-evident, as the test case shows, but other times, the natural law can only be known through the exercise of reason.
Right, I get the point of the test case. I even agree with the test case’s point. Interestingly, this point is consistent with the ideas presented in that excerpt by Ruse and Wilson that KF provided back in comment #409. The two self-described evolutionists assert that what we have been calling a moral sense is a natural part of the human being. What’s more, they say, “evolutionary reasoning emphatically does not lead to moral relativism. Human minds develop according to epigenetic rules that distinguish between proper moral claims like ‘Be kind to children’ and crazy imperatives like ‘treat cabbages with the respect you show your mother’” (p. 310). I disagree with you, SB, where you say –
Clearly, if the analyst disdains reason and embraces subjective morality, which is really the absence of morality, he will not understand anything at all. To understand the moral life is to know that virtues are good habits and vices are bad habits. Advocates for subjective morality never talk about habits.
Specifically, I disagree that embracing subjective morality equals or follows from disdaining reason, and that subjective morality is really the absence of morality. Consider that there is a difference between subjective morality as (a) a proposed explanation of how human ethics actually works in practice, and (b) a philosophy held by a person/community and used in making moral judgments. In the first sense, you can see why Ruse and Wilson say “evolutionary reasoning emphatically does not lead to moral relativism.” It’s because of this shared moral sense, this natural illusion that morals are externally grounded. You can agree or disagree – and in whole or in part – with Ruse and Wilson, but subjective morality in the first sense is the opposite of disdaining reason and clearly not the absence of morality. Concerning the second sense of subjective morality, as someone’s philosophy for making moral decisions and evaluating the behavior of others, you are being uncharitable. This second sense is the one where the truth or falsity of moral judgments comes into play, and so it’s easy to understand why people have strong opinions about it. Nevertheless, it’s important to acknowledge that there is serious, reasoned work being done on subjective morality in this second sense. A good summary is located at the Stanford Philosophy Site. My point about this second sense is that it is indeed a reasoned and reason-driven philosophy, however wrongheaded one might consider it to be. Subjective moral philosophies do not reduce to “everything is permissible” or “nothing is impermissible.” Like any other moral philosophy, they ultimately concern what should or should not be done by moral people. To judge moral subjectivity as the absence of morality is, to me, dismissive of the very reason why people explore and hold such philosophies in the first place. In both senses of subjective morality, there are legitimate/serious objections and questions. This is true for other moral philosophies, too. Right? But we are far afield from what the OP was discussing – which was a parody/pastiche on academic gender studies. I now wish I’d weighed in more on that particular topic, but I guess another opportunity will come around soon enough.LarTanner_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

All reasoning begins with assumptions, but not necessarily "self-evident truths." The classical story, told here before, is of the three forms of geometry based on three different assumptions about parallel lines. Originally, the assumption that "through a point, there is one and only one line parallel to another line" was considered "self-evident" (although even Euclid was bothered by this.) Later it was discovered that different assumptions led to different systems that were equally valid logically.jdk_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit said:
You have to base your morality on more than your heartfelt beliefs. Try the Golden Rule.
Since you agreed that adopting the golden rule doesn't prevent anyone from doing bad things to you, why should I accept the golden rule and not some other objective-commodity based morality, like "might makes right"? I mean, other than perhaps your heartfelt belief that the golden rule is a better moral system?William J Murray_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

I had originally asked MS:
“Why ought we base our oughts on things that we universally would dislike if they happened to us?”
MatSpirit responded:
So we can have an objective moral code that keeps others from doing bad things to us.
I then followed up:
“How would such a code keep others from doing bad things to us?”
To which he responded:
It wouldn’t. Morality is a guide to right conduct, but it has no enforcement power.
So, this contradicts your original answer that we should have that morality because it would be an objective code that keeps others from doing bad things to us. All you are left with is "it would be an objective moral code". So what? You can have a moral code based on any number of objectively real things - like strength, or military power, or age. That doesn't explain why we should adopt your particular "do unto others as you would have done unto you" moral code of avoiding doing things that, universally speaking, nobody would like to have done to them. I asked further:
Why should I obey such a code if I feel like doing things that are against the moral code?
MS responded:
Social pressures, laws, cops, courts, prisons, banishment, sitting at home every Saturday night, etc.
Some follow-up questions: 1. Is it your belief that most people who do immoral things face a backlash of social pressure, go to prison, or sit home every Saturday night? That has never been my experience. 2. Is it your belief that being moral prevents people from facing any backlashes of social pressure, going to prison, or sitting home every Saturday night? 3. If I feel reasonably certain that I will not face any social or legal consequences to my action, nor will I feel any guilt (or, I feel the action is worth any guilt I might experience), is there any reason for me to not do the immoral thing in question?
Then he should start searching because I’ve been asking him and every other believer I can find to describe their moral system to me for years and nobody can do it. Mostly they ignore God’s obvious moral short comings, whether revealed in the Bible or real life dead children and say their system is based on Him.
I've seen several people give such answers in full. Perhaps the problem is that the answers they give are not the ones you either expect or want and so do not appear to you to be answers to your questions. I think this this problem is illuminated in your comment about self-evident truths:
Self evident moral truths don’t cut the mustard. To most people, it is self evidently true that murdering a child for kicks is immoral. Many of those same people believe it is self evidently true that Shia children should be murdered, along with their parents. Some of them call themselves ISIS and claim God as their authority. Even the Bible realizes there’s a problem there. “At that time Israel did not have a king, so everyone did what seemed right in their own eyes.” Judges 17:6 You have to base your morality on more than your heartfelt beliefs. Try the Golden Rule.
Your response seems to conflate various religious and "heartfelt" beliefs with the term "self-evident truth". It is apparent from this comment that you don't understand what a "self-evident truth" means, even though it has been explained to you. This is why, IMO, you don't understand and reject many of the answers you get on this subject. I think you want or expect "self-evident truth" to mean "A heartfelt belief based on religious writings". That's not what it means. A=A is a self-evident truth that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or "heartfelt belief". So is "I exist" and "1+1=2". Even after having this explicitly explained to you, your conflation and confusion continues in your comment immediately following the explanation:
ISIS all the way. It is as self evidently true to them that Shia should be murdered as it is self evidently true to you that they shouldn’t. Only an objective morality can decide which opinion (because that’s all your beliefs are, no matter how mightily you believe them) is truly moral.
Here you are conflating a "command-authority theistic order" with a "self-evident truth". I do not doubt that many ISIS followers have "heartfelt belief" that it is okay to torture and kill innocent children. Religious fervor and emotion are very dangerous commodities, especially when one is dealing with a command-authority theism like the current form of Islam which formally rejects logic as an arbiter of right action. Your erroneous understanding of "self-evident truth" and conflation of that concept with "heartfelt" or "deeply held religious" belief seems to be what is causing most of your confusion about what KF and others here are saying when they explain their moral system structure to you. You also seem to have a particular animus about Christianity and the Bible that seeps into and weirdly affect every exchange. You might look into that.
Thats correct. You can’t reason a man out of an opinion he didn’t reason himself into.
Do you understand that all reasoning begins with self-evident truths?William J Murray_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

at 509, stephen wrote,

jdk: We cannot “rely on logic to absolutely be the arbitrar of what is false”, nor true, unless we limit our scope to abstract logical systems.
Well, jdk,I will use logic to draw two conclusions about the *real world,*:which of course transcends abstract logical systems. [a] If it rains, the streets will get wet. [b] The planet Jupiter cannot also be the planet Saturn. Are those two statements about the real world true?
Before I respond, let me add to the statement from me that Stephen quoted. so I have the full context in which to place my answers. First, the phrase that we cannot "rely on logic to absolutely be the arbitrar of what is false" is vivid's language, not mine. That's why it was in quotes. My full statement was
We cannot "rely on logic to absolutely be the arbitrar of what is false", nor true, unless we limit our scope to abstract logical systems. Everything else involves some kind of empirical experience to be the content of the propositions to which we wish to apply logic.
And then, at 508, right before Stephen's post, I wrote
Logic, by itself, cannot tell us what is false about the real world. Logic, by itself, cannot tell us what is true about the real world either. You [vivid] misrepresent my points to leave out the “by itself” part.
I certainly didn't say, as Stephen seems to imply, that we can't use logic to draw conclusions about the real world. With all that said, I'll discuss Stephen's two statements. The key idea in the use of logic (and math) in application to the real world is that we build conceptual models where aspects of the real world are mapped to elements of the abstract logical system we are using. Then we use logic (and math) to draw conclusions about the real world by manipulating the abstract model. And last, we test our conclusions by going back to the real world and testing to see if the world is as our logic and math predicted. If it is not, assuming that we have made no logical or mathematical mistakes, we conclude that our model needs to be refined, or even replaced. Some models are quite sophisticated and offer only approximations to reality, such as weather simulations, but others are so simple and a part of our immediate experience of the world that we assume them without any analysis. The simplest idea is that of a distinct object. In logic we have the element A upon which logic operates, such as when we write A = A, or ~(A and ~A). In the real world, we experience distinct objects, such as rocks. If we hold a couple of rocks in our hand, despite differences such in things as size, shape and composition, we abstract them conceptually as two "things" distinct from each other, so that logically they are an A and a B. A very large part of our experience starts with this idea of distinct identity of things. We see people, and trees, and stars, etc. However, in many cases, "thingness" becomes less clear, and we have to start refining our distinctions. One example: in naming mountains, geographers have rules about whether two adjoining high points are two mountains, or whether they are one mountain with an associated ridge. But in Stephen's second example, Jupiter and Saturn are clearly distinct objects, an A and a B, so the logical conclusion A cannot also be B is true. But note: even this simple example illustrates my point that "Everything else [outside of purely abstract systems] involves some kind of empirical experience to be the content of the propositions to which we wish to apply logic." We know Jupiter and Saturn are distinct entities because of empirical experience. Therefore the very basic model of mapping Jupiter to A and Saturn to B, and then applying logic, works. Stephen's first example ("If it rains, the streets will get wet"), as Pindl points out, requires some qualifications that require even more empirical experience, as well as additional qualifications in our model, before we can judge its truth value. For instance, a very light mist (at what point does mist become rain is a judgment call we have to make) falling on a very dry dirt road might not get the road wet (is a dirt road a "street", and what qualifies as "wet"?). So I think that both of Stephen's example are good illustrations of both of my points: a) All applications of logic to the real world involve some kind of empirical experience to be the content of the propositions to which we wish to apply logic. b) Logic, by itself, cannot tell us what is true or false about the real world.jdk_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

KF @ 485: First of all, strawman caricature. +1 village atheist talking points +1 Thank you. While I don't doubt that you'd like there to be an "inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature", such a Being seems to be ontologically challenged. If he does exist, Mike Behe says He designed the malaria parasite and the Bible says He's a mass murderer, so I'd think it over before basing a system of morality on His goodness. My counsel to Eisenhower et al would be that sometimes bad things have to be done to avoid worse things and that evil is intentionally doing _unnecessary_ bad things. Ike was not being evil. Vivid in 489: Logic is only as good as its premises and valid premises can be very hard to extract from a world where any particular situation may have dozens of factors contributing to it. Most people who have read a fair bit of Christian apologetics are also aware how extra facts can be added to change the value of a moral equation. See Pindi's example in 514. And of course, its always possible to get confused as StephanB shows in 516. KF @ 492: "Pindi & JDK, when a scheme of thought, say S, includes or entails claims X and Y such that Y is the denial of X, Y = ~X, S is inconsistent." Agreed. Let S be "God is good." This entails claims like "Good beings don't kill children to show off." However, Exodus says God did just that, so "God is good" is inconsistent. As you say, "Yes, purely logical considerations tied to first principles of right reason clearly can falsify claims." I think the Golden Rule stands up to challenges much better. KF @ 496: "self-referentiality" +1 UprightBiped @ 489: "I suddenly understand your reluctance to engage the evidence of semiosis at the origin of life." Most people don't know what semiosis is. I had to look it up myself. Do you actually believe that the first living thing used DNA or some other material symbolically? Can you point to any person who is respected by the OOL community who does? I'm not talking about know-nothings, I mean somebody who at least knows the basics of the field. VB @ 502: "Where am I going wrong?" I think you have a simplistic take on the difficulty in extracting a logical equation from a somewhat chaotic, many-factored world and the skill of some people at dragging in extraneous elements and weird interpretations to confound the logic. See above. UB @ 504: "Ah yes, that favorite initial instinct — that someone should just shut up." Well, a closed mouth gathers no feet. UB: "The idea that DNA contains encoded memory is almost a secret." Apparently the idea that first life didn't have DNA is a secret to YEC/ID. WJM @ 511: "1. How would such a code keep others from doing bad things to us?" It wouldn't. Morality is a guide to right conduct, but it has no enforcement power. WJM: "2. Why should I obey such a code if I feel like doing things that are against the moral code?" Social pressures, laws, cops, courts, prisons, banishment, sitting at home every Saturday night, etc. WJM: "You’re mistaken. KF has not been searching for an is to ground his oughts on; he’s been asking atheists and materialists what they ground their oughts on." Then he should start searching because I've been asking him and every other believer I can find to describe their moral system to me for years and nobody can do it. Mostly they ignore God's obvious moral short comings, whether revealed in the Bible or real life dead children and say their system is based on Him. Yet when they're asked they can't give you any details on their system. Apparently you're supposed to just know what's right. I'd like something better than that. Something I could say to the people who think it's just fine to kill children. Strong feelings and commands from murdering gods don't cut it with them. "You'd think it was bad if it was done to you" carries more weight and has less baggage. WJM: "As I said, I’m not that familiar with the Bible, so I’m hardly in a position to argue about it might say." Well then read it! Read it cover to cover and then read it again. Read some commentaries, especially ones written by people who are not Bibleolaters. You'll get a lot of insight into why so much of the world thinks so poorly about Christianity. WJM: "In my long time at this blog I’ve never seen KF argue from the Bible to an objective morality, but rather from the concept of self-evident truth, with an obvious example, to a rational moral structure using logic to extrapolate from those truths and towards what the presence of self-evident moral truth means." Self evident moral truths don't cut the mustard. To most people, it is self evidently true that murdering a child for kicks is immoral. Many of those same people believe it is self evidently true that Shia children should be murdered, along with their parents. Some of them call themselves ISIS and claim God as their authority. Even the Bible realizes there's a problem there. "At that time Israel did not have a king, so everyone did what seemed right in their own eyes." Judges 17:6 You have to base your morality on more than your heartfelt beliefs. Try the Golden Rule. WJM: "There is no “why” to it. It’s a fact sewn into the very fabric of reality – an expression of natural moral law. It’s like asking “why” 1+1=2, or asking “why” A=A. Self-evident truths are what we use logic to reason from to gain insight on moral problems that are not self-evident. IOW, such moral truths are the foundation for clear reasoning towards developing a broader moral system." ISIS all the way. It is as self evidently true to them that Shia should be murdered as it is self evidently true to you that they shouldn't. Only an objective morality can decide which opinion (because that's all your beliefs are, no matter how mightily you believe them) is truly moral. WJM: "There is no reasoning with someone that denies a self-evident truth." Thats correct. You can't reason a man out of an opinion he didn't reason himself into. KF @ 512: habitual gross misrepresentation +1 strawman. +1 self-referentially +1 village atheist type. +1 implicitly anti-Semitic. - about 30,000 points. There's no call for that. strawman caricature +1 spew rhetorical venom +1 toxic tangential quarrel +1 village atheists +1 fellow travellers toxic, polarised rhetorical clouds +4 gutter of prurience and sexual pathologies and follies +1 fundamental intellectual dishonesty +1 If such objectors seriously wanted answers, they would go over to William Lane Craig + wtf? or Glenn Miller’s Christian Thinktank + WTF? or JPH’s Tekton + You have got to be kidding us. Have you ever engaged Mr. Holding in a discussion on Biblical slavery? garbage on the lawn game +1 My basic answer is to stand by the Sacred Road with Petain in 1916, sending boys up the road to the mincer in progress at Verdun, knowing that only a few days later shattered remnants scarred for life will be limping back down this same road. No retreat is possible, France must bleed out its youth to hold the line here, now: they shall not pass, for if they do, the result is a nightmare. +You definitely need a break. This time, it is not nuke threshold, nukes are already in play. - You're worrying me. Meanwhile, I am still quite busy, and still have travel to deal with. - Oh, well never mind the nukes then. I'm going to be travelling for the next few days, but I'm taking my tablet along and will read and reply when I can.MatSpirit_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

An insightful quote from 2015 in the aftermath of the SCOTUS Obergefell decision. ”To put it bluntly, the reason why we have seen so much power behind redefining marriage is not because it serves 1.8 percent of the population. It is because it serves Leviathan — the Hobbesian vision of an absolutely sovereign state with ever-expansive control over every aspect of our lives.” Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420207/same-sex-marriage-limited-government-conflictjohn_a_designer_{June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 20 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply