>>ALL morals that we have, regardless of the source, regardless of whether they are objective or subjective, are filtered through humans. As such, we can never be absolutely sure that they are free from error. All of your “moral governance”, “reasoning and responsibility“, “self referential”, “IS-OUGHT” talking points are just that. Talking points. They are not arguments against what I have said about the fact that ALL purported moral actions are open to be questioned. Unless, of course, you suggest that we shouldn’t use the reasoning capabilities that we were given. >>
This is of course reflective of common views and agendas in our civilisation and so it is appropriate to reply, taking time to address key issues at worldviews level:
KF, 32: >>Pardon, but it is now further evident that you have not seen the significance of self-evident truth in general.
Could you be in error that you are conscious?
If so, what is there that is aware to regard the possibility of error? (And this is about the bare fact of consciousness, you could be a brain in a vat manipulated by electrified probes to imagine yourself a man in the world and you would still be undeniably certain of the bare fact of your own consciousness.)
Speaking of, that error exists is also undeniably true. Let E be that claim, then put up the attempted denial ~E. In other words ~E means it is an error to say that error exists. So, E is undeniable.
2 + 3 = 5 is also self-evident and undeniable:
|| + ||| –> |||||
In general, SET’s are truths that — once we are able to understand i/l/o our experience of the world — are seen to be so, and to be necessarily so on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial.
Such lie at the heart of rationality, through the manifest fact of distinct identity. Take some distinct A like a bright red ball on a table, so the world W is:
W = {A|~A}
From this world partition, we instantly see that A is itself, and no x can be (A AND ~A), also that any x is (A X-OR ~A). That is, from distinct identity, the three first principles of right reason are immediately present: Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle.
Likewise from distinct identity two-ness is a direct corollary and from that the natural counting numbers and much of the logic of structure and quantity follows — i.e. Mathematics (which is NOT primarily an empirical discipline). As a start, I use the von Neumann construction:
Much more can be said, but the above is sufficient to show that there are literally infinitely many things that we may know with utter certainty, starting from a few that are self-evident. But also, such SET’s are insufficient to construct a worldview; they serve as plumbline tests for worldviews.
In particular, that something like E is knowable to utter certainty on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial means, truth exists as what says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. Similarly, this is warranted to utter certainty and so some things can be known to utterly, absolutely cretain degree. Therefore any worldview that imagines that such knowledge is impossible collapses in fatal, central error. Subjectivism, relativism and post modernism, I am looking straight at you.
Going further, following the Kantians, many have been induced to imagine that there is an ugly gulch blocking us from knowledge on the external world of things in themselves. Ever since F H Bradley over 100 years ago, this is known to be false. For, the claim to know of such an ignorance gap is to claim to know something of the outside world, i.e. the claim is self referential and incoherent.
A plumbline
We may then infer freely, that we may and do know things about reality external to our interior lives. Though, as error exists is equally certain, we must be careful in warrant. As a first test, plumbline truths will help us. And for many things a lesser degree of warrant is more than good enough. For example on serious matters, we may have moral certainty, that it would be irresponsible to act as though some A were false, on the evidence to hand or reasonably accessible. For yet other things — including science by and large — plausibly or possibly so and reliable i/l/o the balance of evidence is good enough. And so forth.
I am taking a little time to show you that I am not just talking from empty talking points, there are grounds of warrant for what I have to say. And, speaking for this blog, on worldview matters we have spent years thinking through such core matters. As, they lie at the heart of how our civilisation is in the state it is.
Now, too, you will notice that in speaking of moral certainty, I highlighted responsibility, moral government. We intuitively know that we have duties to truth, care in reasoning, fairness, justice, neighbour who is as we are, and more.
All of this reflects how our life of reason is inextricably entangled with responsibility, duty, moral government. And, dismissive hyperskepticism seeking to sweep that away is manifestly a failure of such duties.
Were our rational faculty utterly unrestrained by responsibility, duty, moral government, it would fall into the cynical nihilism of utter manipulativeness and imposition by force: might and/or manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘justice’ and more. That is suicidally absurd. And you know better, as you know that the very force that energises dispute such as in this thread is duty to truth, sound reason and more.
Yes, the mere fact that we inescapably find ourselves trying to justify ourselves and show others in the wrong immediately reveals the massive fact of moral government, and that this is critical to governing ourselves in community. On pain of mutual ruin.
But then, that surfaces another point you wished to brush off with dismissive talking points: the IS-OUGHT gap. That IS and OUGHT are categorically distinct and hard to resolve and unify. That has been known since Plato and beyond. Since Hume, we have known it can only be resolved at world-root level, or else we fall under the guillotine of ungrounded ought. Reasoning IS-IS, then suddenly from nowhere OUGHT-OUGHT. Where, if OUGH-ness is delusion, it instantly entails grand delusion, including of the life of responsible reason itself.
Your root challenge is, there is only one serious candidate that can soundly bridge the gap: the 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.
This is not an arbitrary imposition, we are dealing with worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory adequacy (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork). If you doubt what I just said, simply put up a successful atlernative: ________ . (Prediction: v. hard to do.)
So, we are at world-root level, looking at generic ethical theism and the central importance of moral government in our life of reason.
The easy hyperskepticism that sweeps all before it on sheer rhetorical audacity is not good enough.
And, it is interesting that so far you have not readily found significant fault with the central Christian ethical teaching (which is of course profoundly Hebraic in its roots). It is there above, laid out in full. Kindly, tell us why those who acknowledge themselves to be under its government and will readily acknowledge that it is a stiff life-challenge are to be instantly, deeply suspect with but few exceptions.
And, tell us why a civilisation deeply influenced by such a teaching is to be branded with a scarlet letter instead of found to be in the sort of struggle to rise to excellence in the face of our finitude, prone-ness to error, moral struggle and too often our ill-will that are the anchor-points of genuine progress for our world.>>
I should add an earlier remark on two example of self-evident moral truth:
KF, 15: >>[I]mplicit in any contested argument is the premise that we have duties to truth, right and soundness in reasoning. On pain of twisting our intellectual powers into nihilistic weapons of cynical deception. In short X objects to Y, on the confident knowledge of in-common duties of intellectual, rational and epistemic virtue. The attempt to challenge ALL moral obligation would be self-referential and incoherent, undermining good faith reasoning itself.
I would go so far as to say this duty of care to truth, right and sound reasoning is self-evident and is typically implicitly accepted.
So, no, we cannot challenge ALL moral claims without undermining even the process of argument itself. No, we cannot dismiss general moral reasoning as suspect of being a blind appeal to authorities. No, mere consequences we happen to imagine (ever heard of the doctrine of unintended consequences?) or motives we think we read in the hearts of others (you are the same who seemingly views Christianity in general as though we are automatically suspect . . .) cannot ground such a broad-brush skepticism about moral reasoning.
We are already at self-referential incoherence.
Infinite regress comes out of the insisted on ALL and the inextricable entanglement of reasoning and moral duties as were outlined. Claim A is suspect so B must be advanced but implies another ought, so B requires C, and oops, we are on to infinity and absurdity.
General hyperskepticism about the moral brings down the proud edifice of reason too by fatally undermining its own self.
Selective hyperskepticism ends in inconsistency, exerting a double standard: stiff rules for thee, but not for me when such are not convenient to where I want to go . . . .
we need plumbline, naturally straight test cases.
One of these, as I outlined, is the inextricable entanglement of reason and duty to truth, right and soundness of logic.
In that light, we can then look at sound yardstick cases and clear the rubble of the modernist collapse of rationality and responsibility away.
For example,it is self-evidently wrong, wicked, evil to kidnap, bind, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child for one’s sick pleasure. (And, sadly, this is NOT a hypothetical case.)
Probe this case and you will see that such a child hath neither strength nor eloquence to fight or plead for himself or herself. And yet, were we to chance on such a demonic act in progress we are duty bound to try to rescue or at least bawl for help.
We are inescapably under moral government.
Which implies that IS and OUGHT must be bridged in the root of reality, on pain of reducing moral government to grand delusion that takes down rationality itself in its collapse.>>
Food for thought. END
Comments
Cr
Origines in 72 and 75 has demonstrated that your position is self referentialy incoherent, if true it’s false. What’s so hard to understand?
Vividvividbleau
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Critical Rationalist
This is what I mean when I say what KF calls basic-beliefs are just beliefs that we currently have no good criticism of.
I think you may be misunderstanding the role of the natural moral law as a basis for making moral judgments. Just as we can reason from self evident metaphysical truths, such as the law of Identity, we can also reason from self-evident moral truths, such as the natural moral law. We know, for example, that stealing is wrong because we also know that community life would be impossible if everyone was a thief. No religious instruction is needed because reason alone makes the point clear.
On the other hand, we can judge the quality of a religious world view based on its reasonableness. Christianity acknowledges the Natural Moral Law; Islam does not. Christianity provides for a consistent moral code, Islam, given its doctrine of abrogation, does not. Therefore, the former belief system is obviously superior to the latter, which cannot be the infallible word of God by virtue of its irrational foundations and the moral errors that follow.StephenB
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
KF,
Sadly, there are many examples in history where what you and I regard as barbaric acts were treated as expedient, practical, religious, or in some cases, sporting.
A survey of the Bible reveals some of these disgusting and horrific practices, including live infant sacrifice by fire.
Even a brief study into Assyrian methods of torture as a practical means to intimidate the people of the ANE should fill anyone with revulsion.
The ceremonial kidnapping and homosexual rape of boys at age 12 for eight years was institutionalized in Mycenaean culture, while women were confined to the narrow role of bearing and raising children.
Where do these worldviews come from?
Conversely, even rvb8 has resolutely resisted my playful nudges to get him to admit that without a Moral Lawgiver, it's completely reasonable and practical to process aborted fetuses into nourishing and highly compatible protein that could be used to save the lives of millions of starving people in the world! Not to mention using them as a source for organ transplants and medical research. ;-)
-QQuerius
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Truth, sadly so. There comes a point where that needs to be noted for record. KFkairosfocus
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Origenes, it seems that our critics cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the significance of self-evident first principles which are such that to reject them lands one in patent absurdity. They have also failed to see how double-edged self-referential arguments are. KFkairosfocus
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Draw the chart and I would post it.kairosfocus
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
KF @ 77: "JS, you have now outright spoken with disregard to truth." and "You are clearly not a good faith participant... "
I have come to expect such attitude and behavior from a/mats. Just par for the course. And these deluded fools actually believe themselves to be morally superior to the rest of us. What a joke that is.Truth Will Set You Free
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
JAD, sadly, right. KFkairosfocus
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
JS, you have now outright spoken with disregard to truth. I have spoken to the primary issue long since (fallible thinkers like us can and do know some things to utter certainty including that we are conscious, that error exists, that the first principles of right reason are true and that certain moral claims -- including one actually given -- are self evidently true). A comparison with the OP will show that every one of these is highly relevant to the root issue. Since you insisted on a distractor, I explained why it was besides the point. I answered it specifically (it is trivially the case that one may question a moral or any other view) and corrected the trend it feeds (that if one hyperskeptically challenges one may set an arbitrarily high standard to make it seem that you are justified in dismissal). You are clearly not a good faith participant, game over. KFkairosfocus
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
CR, really. What Christians have creedally believed about the trinity is a creedal, public fact since 325 AD and was in discussion long before that. Whether or no you agree or disagree with it is of no consequence, the matter is to describe it accurately; the Quran fails to do so and so shows that it has lost credibility at the required standard. Your continued talking points say you are not discussing in good faith so that is all I need to further note. KFkairosfocus
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
CR@73
CR: Apparently, you didn’t actually read the quote or the article.
I provided the quote in its entirety and followed up with a point by point commentary … God give me strength!
CR: Namely, that there seems to be a paradox. That’s what you’re assuming, right?
No.
CR: I’m quoting that because it seems to be your position.
No, that does not seem to be my position at all. Did you read my post? I clearly state that self-reference is not a paradox. There is contradiction involved but not a paradox. Deutsch does not know what a paradox is, nor does he understand the problem he attempts to address.
CR: And I’m pointing out that is addressed in the article.
And I clearly show that Deutsch does not understand the problem.
O: How does the fallibilist accomplish this doubt? By which argument, chain of reasoning, set of beliefs — independent from fallibilism — does the fallibilist judge the fallibility of fallibilism?
CR: Again, we guess, then test out guesses. None of our guesses are guaranteed to correct. We’re merely trying to be less wrong.
A: I guess that fallibilism is fallible
B: Okay let’s test this.
A: Good idea, I guess ...
B: All knowledge is fallible, including fallibilism. Therefore:
1. All knowledge is fallible.
2. *All knowledge is fallible* is knowledge.
Therefore, from (1) and (2)
3. It is fallible that *All knowledge is fallible*.
Therefore
4. *All knowledge is fallible* is either self-defeating or meaningless.
CR: This is what I mean when I say what KF calls basic-beliefs are just beliefs that we currently have no good criticism of.
You are incapable of understanding that criticism itself needs a foundation — see #69.
CR: Given that I’ve made this argument at least a half a dozen times, it’s unclear why you’d assume I think our means of criticism is somehow infallible as well.
You cannot judge/criticize when any such judgment/criticism would be just as suspect as what it seeks to adjudicate/criticize — see #69.
But you will never be able to understand why that is.Origenes
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Origenes,
In CR’s account, ‘Reason’ infallibly tells CR that there is no “infallible way to identify an infallible source or infallibly interpret an infallible source if one existed.”
Which is why everything else CR writes and pontificates about on this site is just meaningless pretention and posturing which he fallaciously assumes is the same as reasoning. Why does he think this way? Because like everyone else he’s “hardwired” to try to make sense of it all. However, if his naturalistic/materialistic world view is true, trying to make sense of it all is pointless. Obviously, CR is someone who has not come to terms with his own atheism. If he had he would not be here bothering us, not only because it is fallacious but because it is pointless, meaningless and foolish.john_a_designer
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
@Origenes
Apparently, you didn't actually read the quote or the article.
Namely, that there seems to be a paradox. That's what you're assuming, right? I'm quoting that because it seems to be your position. And I'm pointing out that is addressed in the article.
How does the fallibilist accomplish this doubt? By which argument, chain of reasoning, set of beliefs — independent from fallibilism — does the fallibilist judge the fallibility of fallibilism?
Again, we guess, then test out guesses. None of our guesses are guaranteed to correct. We're merely trying to be less wrong.
Again...
Criticizing something and having those criticisms fail is not the same thing as considering it to be infallible. Criticisms failing is what we actually have. When that happens, we can be comfortable knowing not that what’s left is true, but that the rival ideas that we have at the moment are false. Or there is some reason that we don’t know yet, that we don’t know yet, which will be discovered by criticism.
Y seems like X. All of our best argument against X seem to be falling. So, for now, we'll critically take X on board. All of our best arguments against X are just that. More guesses that we critically take on board, etc.
This is what I mean when I say what KF calls basic-beliefs are just beliefs that we currently have no good criticism of. That can change because in no way do I think that we currently possession all good criticisms of, say, consciousness, or any other supposedly basic belief.
Given that I've made this argument at least a half a dozen times, it's unclear why you'd assume I think our means of criticism is somehow infallible as well.critical rationalist
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
CR@
You should know that Deutsch’s nonsense has already been addressed; e.g. here. But, let’s look at the garbage again:
Deutsch: Paradoxes seem to appear when one considers the implications of one’s own fallibility: A fallibilist cannot claim to be infallible even about fallibilism itself. And so, one is forced to doubt that fallibilism is universally true. Which is the same as wondering whether one might be somehow infallible—at least about some things. For instance, can it be true that absolutely anything that you think is true, no matter how certain you are, might be false?
Let’s break it down (again):
Deutsch: Paradoxes seem to appear when one considers the implications of one’s own fallibility: ….
Does Deutsch even know what a paradox is? The way he uses it does not indicate that he does. How is self-reference /self-defeating statement a “paradox”?
Deutsch: A fallibilist cannot claim to be infallible even about fallibilism itself.
So, the fallibilist claims that fallibilism is fallible. How? And what does it mean?
Deutsch: And so, one is forced to doubt that fallibilism is universally true.
How does the fallibilist accomplish this doubt? By which argument, chain of reasoning, set of beliefs — independent from fallibilism — does the fallibilist judge the fallibility of fallibilism? Put another way, ‘doubting fallibilism’ is based on what — see #69?
Of course, Deutsch, who does not understand the problem at all, does not say.
Deutsch: Which is the same as wondering whether one might be somehow infallible—at least about some things. For instance, can it be true that absolutely anything that you think is true, no matter how certain you are, might be false?
No Deutsch. No, that cannot be true, because, that would be yet another self-defeating statement:
1. Everything I think is true is false.
2. “Everything I think is true is false” is something that I think.
Therefore, from (1) and (2)
(3) “Everything I think is true is false” is false.
Therefore
(4) Not everything I think is false.
CR, please stop quoting Deutsch. He is a complete failure on philosophy.Origenes
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
KF at 54 and 56. It appears that you are incapable of answering a simple question. One that is completely on target with the OP. I know it is on target with the OP because your OP was a lack of response to one of my comments.
I ask again. Are all moral actions open to questioning. Let’s start with a Yes or No, and then proceed from there.JSmith
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Mistake 1: If reason comes first, then naturalism is no option.
That's a big assumption, because I do not recall stating that reason is the result of the supernatural.
In CR’s account, ‘Reason’ infallibly tells CR that there is no “infallible way to identify an infallible source or infallibly interpret an infallible source if one existed.”
Nor did I say that reason is infallible. In fact, I've said faillabists must even question fallibilism itself.
It is rather bothersome to watch Origenes making the same basic mistakes over and over again as this supposed paradox has been addressed here.
Paradoxes seem to appear when one considers the implications of one’s own fallibility: A fallibilist cannot claim to be infallible even about fallibilism itself. And so, one is forced to doubt that fallibilism is universally true. Which is the same as wondering whether one might be somehow infallible—at least about some things. For instance, can it be true that absolutely anything that you think is true, no matter how certain you are, might be false?
Criticizing something and having those criticisms fail is not the same thing as considering it to be infallible. Criticisms failing is what we actually have. When that happens, we can be comfortable knowing not that what's left is true, but that the rival ideas that we have at the moment are false. Or there is some reason that we don't know yet, that we don't know yet, which will be discovered by criticism.
See this video.critical rationalist
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
CR: Again, this is effectively what you would have done if you hand not believed the infallibility doctrine. You don’t seem to realize that reason always comes first, In my case, reason tells me to reject both the Qur’an and the Bible. Reason tells me I don’t have an infallible way to identify an infallible source or infallibly interpret an infallible source if one existed.
It is rather bothersome to watch CR making the same basic mistakes over and over again.
Let’s break it down once more:
CR: You don’t seem to realize that reason always comes first …
Mistake 1: If reason comes first, then naturalism is no option. Followed by mistake 2:
CR: In my case, reason tells me to reject both the Qur’an and the Bible. Reason tells me I don’t have an infallible way to identify an infallible source or infallibly interpret an infallible source if one existed.
In CR’s account, ‘Reason’ infallibly tells CR that there is no “infallible way to identify an infallible source or infallibly interpret an infallible source if one existed.”
CR’s reason claims that all sources of beliefs, acts of reasoning, etc., are fallible and posits a closed circle in which no beliefs can be said to be infallible or rational. Yet at the same time, CR’s reason arrogates to itself a position outside of this circle by which it can judge the beliefs of others, a move it denies to its opponents. Since the raison d’être of fallibilism is that there is no outside of the circle, CR’s reason does not have the epistemic right to assume a position independent of the circle, and so its beliefs about the fallibility of beliefs or reasoning are just as fallible as those it criticizes. If all of the beliefs inside the circle are fallible, CR’s reason cannot judge between truth and falsity, since any such judgment would be just as suspect as what it seeks to adjudicate.
So again, CR, you would have to seek another argument, another chain of reasoning, another set of beliefs, by which you can judge the judgment—and a third set to judge the judgment of the judgment, ad infinitum. At no point can your reason step out of the circle to a transcendent standpoint that would allow it to reject some beliefs as fallible while remaining infallible itself.Origenes
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
@KF
Thus, responsible reason is a component of addressing moral learning but for sure rationalism (which as a starting move rejects the possibility that God is there and is not silent) is not a viable view.
So then how do you escape using it first?
It is hard to contain reason within bounds. If you take your faith sufficiently seriously you may realize that it is not only the printers who are fallible in stating the rules for ex cathedra, but also the committee that wrote down those rules. And then that nothing can infallibly tell you what is infallible, nor what is probable. It is precisely because you, being fallible and having no infallible access to the infallible authority, no infallible way of interpreting what the authority means, and no infallible means of identifying an infallible authority in the first place, that infallibility cannot help you before reason has had its say.
What good does it do to say, there is some infallible source that prescribes some some value or duty that is applicable when faced with this specific moral problem. unless you have infallible knowledge as to what that duty or value should be? How dose that result in not using reason in the same way someone how doesn't believe in the infallibility of that source?
IOW, it seems that the process we both take is effectively the same as far as reason is concerned.
For example, which aspects of the Bible are literal and with are metaphorical? Which knowledge do we have that is perfectly written on our hearts so we have no excuse when we run astray? The answers to those questions is decided by reason. You use it to decide when to defer to the supposedly infallible source. At which point, reason has had its say first.critical rationalist
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Again, there are no hard to vary explanations in the Bible regarding salvation, etc. This is because God and Jesus are only related to salvation directly by claims made in doctrine. It could be equally replaced with some other "explanation" in the or the Qur’an. or some other holy text because it can be easily varied without significantly reducing it's ability to "explain" salvation (which isn't something that we can "observe"). God is all knowing, all powerful and perfectly "Good". Any solution he came up with must be possible and must be "Good".
People here seem to find it arrogant to use reason to question God. But that's exactly what they're doing when they question the Qur’an or some other religious text or a particular interpretation. To accept one, they must reject others, and be "guilty" of what they accuse others of doing. Reason always comes first.critical rationalist
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
@KF
CR, you neatly omitted that there is a serious misrepresentation of the trinity doctrine of the Christian church, which erects a strawman. This is not a matter of disagreement on theology, but of basic error of fact as to what Christians believe and teach.
Ok, then let's add that as well...
- It conflicts with Christian ideas about the trinity doctrine.
That's just one more aspect where you reject the Qur’an which claims to be the verbatim word and the final divine revelation of God.
This is yet another example of how you use reason to decide when to defer to a supposed infallible source and reason to interpret that supposedly infallible source. Reason always comes first.
And, yes, this is about epistemology. That's been my point all along. I'm referring to moral knowledge.
I’ll tell you what really happened3. You witnessed a dress rehearsal. The real ex cathedra ceremony was on the following day. In order not to make the declaration a day early, they substituted for the real text (which was about some arcane theological issue, not gravity) a lorem-ipsum-type placeholder that they deemed so absurd that any serious listener would immediately realize that that’s what it was.
And indeed, you did realize this; and as a result, you reinterpreted your “direct experience,” which was identical to that of witnessing an ex cathedra declaration, as not being one. Precisely by reasoning that the content of the declaration was absurd, you concluded that you didn’t have to believe it. Which is also what you would have done if you hadn’t believed the infallibility doctrine.
Note the emphasis here. You decided which infallible source to defer to on the death of Jesus, despite the fact that reports from local government would be identical in cases of Allah taking Jesus right before ie died or Jesus being unsusceptible to crucifixion. etc.
You used reason to decide that you didn't have to believe the Qur’an but you had to believe Christian doctrine in that particular case.
Again, this is effectively what you would have done if you hand not believed the infallibility doctrine. You don't seem to realize that reason always comes first, In my case, reason tells me to reject both the Qur’an and the Bible. Reason tells me I don't have an infallible way to identify an infallible source or infallibly interpret an infallible source if one existed.
Of course, you seem to think that we have some guarantee that gives us a infallible minim amount of reason so we can make free choices. But that's based on Christian doctrine that we are without excuse. And you're decided to defer to that as well, via reason.critical rationalist
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
Q, kindly, ponder the real world case I have given (which came to me by way of, there is a search on for C's son, then the horror and shock of learning just what was found in bushes by an aqueduct on the far side of the campus, where there is a bridge he would have walked across on his way home from school) and say Seversky's reaction to it. Much will emerge from that. KF
PS: I have not sought to lay out a general theory of moral knowledge, but to show that the set, warranted credibly true (and reliable) belief is not empty, and that the moral subset is also non-empty. Such suffices to refute the sort of claim being addressed in the OP. A universal negative is overthrown by a single credible counter-example. I am FYI perfectly open to the point that our conscience and teachers help us to learn moral truth, or that the inherently good and truth-telling Supreme Being can and does speak through legitimate spokesmen. But in so noting I see that we are to test claimed prophets, cleave to the good and abstain from the mere shadow of evil in so listening to claimed spokesmen of God. Thus, responsible reason is a component of addressing moral learning but for sure rationalism (which as a starting move rejects the possibility that God is there and is not silent) is not a viable view. Especially, once we see that the IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged and can only be bridged at world-root level. Where, if moral government is delusional that taints all of our inner life with grand delusion, so we see self-referential absurdity as the consequence of rejecting that we are under real moral government that we are first aware of through conscience.kairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
F/N: Let me lay out a summary of my actual moral beliefs (which has in it some indication of warrant), as I have long placed on record:
. . . it is perhaps best to start with a very concrete case, one which is unfortunately not just theoretical:
ASSERTION: it is self-evidently wrong, bad and evil to kidnap, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child. Likewise, by corollary: if we come across such a case in progress, it is our duty to try to intervene to save the child from such a monster.
Almost all people will agree that such a case is horrible, and to be deplored. So also, they will agree that a duty of rescue obtains, or at least succor for someone left half dead. Thus, we see the significance of the Good Samaritan as a paradigm of neighbourliness across racial, religious, political and other dividing-lines or even outright enmity:
Luke 10:25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”
28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Jesus replied,
“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’
36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?”
37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” [ESV]
And, normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of such core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . .
Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, "harm"] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]
Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles; for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions.
So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also
(b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law.
For instance:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.)
3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. (That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.)
4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise.
5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do.
6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT -- so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively.*)
7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.)
8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity.
9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd.
10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle's terms as cited by Hooker: "because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like .") Thus also,
11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil.
_________________
* F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.
It will be interesting to see how the objectors respond.
KFkairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT
KF wrote
Q, no, the OP shows that the category moral knowledge is non-empty. It does not attempt to impose rationalism as a criterion of morality. KF
So how does the category of moral knowledge that you're referring to become non-empty? How are self-evident truths discovered?
According to plato.stanford.edu . . .
One is a question of moral epistemology: how do human beings become aware of, or acquire knowledge or belief about, moral good and evil, right and wrong, duty and obligation? Ethical theorists and theologians of [Hume's] day held, variously, that moral good and evil are discovered: (a) by reason in some of its uses (Hobbes, Locke, Clarke), (b) by divine revelation (Filmer), (c) by conscience or reflection on one's (other) impulses (Butler), or (d) by a moral sense: an emotional responsiveness manifesting itself in approval or disapproval (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson).
The OP seems to have chosen (a) above, right?
-QQuerius
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
PPPS: We should note a rhetorical agenda. "Open to question" is far too often the foot in the door for, if I can question, I can impose a selectively hyperskeptical, arbitrarily high level of demand for warrant (that I wouldn't apply to what I am inclined to accept) then dismiss on the resulting double-standard. The consequences of this are of course utterly ruinous. So, again, I point to the importance of addressing the prior question, what is knowledge, and like unto it, what degrees of warrant are relevant. Then, we can address the issue of self evident truth thence moral cases. On these we can calibrate sound yardsticks we can then use to construct a wider view.kairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
PS: Heine warned us long since:
Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [--> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . do not overlook the obvious], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame [--> an irrational battle- and blood- lust]. …
The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. …
… Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. …
At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [--> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [--> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns] will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831]
As did Provine:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . .
The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
PPS: Trotting out the oh the OT has cases we can manipulate to look like the above, is irrelevant and a distortion. For those who are troubled by such all too common Internet Atheist talking points, I suggest here on as a start to a sounder balance on our Judaeo-Christian heritage.kairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
Seversky:
[KF:] FYI, there is warrant offered up to and including concrete cases as to why there is objective moral knowledge.
[S:] Only if you define “objective” to include subjective beliefs that are common to most if not all individuals in society. Does inter-subjective agreement on an “ought” make it objective by virtue of residing in the mind of more than one subject?
You here reveal the true nihilistic horror of cultural relativism and its consensus [of the powerful enough to count] is the nearest to truth premise.
Manipulate enough of the sufficiently powerful and kidnapping, binding, sexually assaulting and murdering a young child for pleasure is suddenly okay.
See why we have seen the notion that there is nothing wrong with the ongoing, million more victims per week slaughter of 800+ million of our living posterity in the womb? And, of: it's only fringe extremists and haters who object? So, also, of oh, those who count are seeing words like Christmas and Jesus as worthy of tracking as hate speech.
No, it has nothing to do with feelings of empathy, it has everything to do with the rise of utterly destructive trends that cling to absurdities in the teeth of cogent cautions to the contrary.
And of course, we do have a widespread sense of being under binding obligation to the truth, the logically sound, the right etc, indeed it is a general but often unstated premise of verbal disagreements and disputes. Your remarks above are tantamount to, we can safely classify such as delusion, anesthetise consciences of a critical mass and proceed as we please, regardless of consequences with those who don't count. Those we have cleverly managed to dehumanise or demonise and scapegoat.
Instantly, that is a species of arguing that the moral sense and voice of conscience are grand delusion. Such then pervades our life of the mind and ends in destructive absurdity. Taking down rationality with it, leading to a form of might and manipulation make right.
Down that road lies a river of blood.
But of course, who cares about such a silly notion as lessons of history?
And so, over the cliff we go.
BTW, I can also incorporate your:
I believe rape is wrong and I don’t need a god to tell me so.
But what we merely believe at any given time is subject to might and manipulation, per the horror story of the Parable of Plato's Cave. So, what happens when the powers that be manipulate the shadow show game's dominant narrative?
This is a part of why I have pointed to the importance of understanding knowledge as (in the weak form sense) warranted, credibly true belief. What you have NOT stated above, is that you have warrant that rape etc are wrong to the point of credible truth. And, you have reacted to a case, a real case of kidnapping, sexual assault and murder for pleasure in this way.
The reduction to absurdity should serve as a warning to all on the matches we are playing with here as a civilisation.
And that is long before we get to the issue of bridging the IS-OUGHT gap at world roots level. Where it is to be noted that you have failed to place a cogent candidate on the table.
If we are prudent, we will begin to realise what is at stake for our civilisation.
But then, how many of us understand the Nuremberg defense, oh we were obeying the orders of legitimate command authority in accord with the duly passed laws of our state?
Living memory history, duly forgotten.
As is the counter argument that prevailed: we share a common, inherently valuable nature and are aware of a higher law that binds us, which law of our nature shows that what was done was a wrong, a crime against humanity on unprecedented scale.
But then, who cares what silly ghosts from the dead past have to say?
KFkairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
Truth Will Set You Free @ 30
Seversky @ 24: Objective. I believe that rape is objectively wrong, and not just a matter of subjective cultural choice or personal opinion. If you agree, then you have taken a big step toward theism. Congratulations.
I believe rape is wrong and I don't need a god to tell me so. Are you saying you would have no way of coming to the view that it is wrong unless you were told that it was wrong by some moral authority? Need I remind you that the Old Testament has some distinctly unpleasant accounts which include children of vanquished peoples being raped and put to the sword by the victors? If that sort of behavior is objectively wrong now it must have been objectively wrong then.Seversky
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
kairosfocus @ 27
Seversky, it seems you have failed to read the OP before commenting with intent to object. FYI, there is warrant offered up to and including concrete cases as to why there is objective moral knowledge.
Only if you define "objective" to include subjective beliefs that are common to most if not all individuals in society. Does inter-subjective agreement on an "ought" make it objective by virtue of residing in the mind of more than one subject?
I suggest you start from the case of a kidnapped, sexually brutalised, murdered child, then come back to us on why it is only a matter of subjective perceptions, might and manipulation that he had a right to his live and to the inviolability of his person.
I'm sure everyone here would agree that such an offense against a child is morally wrong. But we are all human. We can empathize with - and be appalled by - the suffering of the child and its family and friends. But, as I asked once before, can we not also imagine an alien race that lacks any empathy for the young of an alien species and, hence does not view as immoral acts that we find horrific?Seversky
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
boru @ 20
ALL purported moral actions are open to be questioned? — ALL moral actions without exception?
Open to question? Yes. Are there moral actions you think should be exempt from being questioned?Seversky
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
JS, I see "We all think that our moral beliefs are correct. You only have to read KF’s comments to know that this is true." Where have I given a presentation of the set of my moral beliefs, as opposed to a highly select few cases that I proceeded to establish as moral knowledge? The truthful -- as opposed to rhetorical -- answer is, nowhere. What I have argued is that all reasoning inevitably is entangled with duties of care to truth, sound logic, fairness etc, on pain of pretty blatant absurdities on attempted denial. This you have sneered at and attempted a couple of failed counter examples to, forgetting that the whole tenor of your case has been an attempt to correct what you imagine to be my error. As in, self-refutation. Next, I presented a specific substantial case as a moral yardstick, abduction, sexual assault and murder of a child for pleasure. This is self-evidently evil as the attempt to suggest otherwise is instantly absurd. It is also highly instructive, as it draws out many principles of moral government that are of great moment. KFkairosfocus
KF, 32: >>Pardon, but it is now further evident that you have not seen the significance of self-evident truth in general.
From this world partition, we instantly see that A is itself, and no x can be (A AND ~A), also that any x is (A X-OR ~A). That is, from distinct identity, the three first principles of right reason are immediately present: Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle.
Much more can be said, but the above is sufficient to show that there are literally infinitely many things that we may know with utter certainty, starting from a few that are self-evident. But also, such SET’s are insufficient to construct a worldview; they serve as plumbline tests for worldviews.
