>>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
This seems to be the crux of the issue..
Suppose that 2 + 2 = 4 is open to questioning. Would there be a basis for mathematics?
That's exactly what we're suggesting. And you have't conflicted with the idea.
If all of our criticisms of 2 + 2 = 4, etc., fail, then yes, there is a basis for mathematics. And, they have continued to fail. Criticisms failing is all we have.
For example, how did you specifically pick 2 + 2 = 4, and all other propositions listed here, as candidates for immunity from criticism? Why not some some other propositions, such as the angles of a triangle sum to two right angles, or that the city you live in exists, etc?
Did you not conclude those specific propositions would best make your point because they were the most unambiguously true of all the candidate propositions you considered including in your argument?
If so, then how did you determine how obviously and unambiguously true each of those candidate propositions was in relation to the other candidates? Did you not stop and criticize them by an attempt to quickly consider reasons or ways they might be conceivably false?
It seems that, if you didn't criticize them, then you have no way of concluding those specific propositions would best make your point. If they were immune from criticism, then did you arbitrarily choose them?
IOW, nothing you've said conflicts with the idea that there is no dichotomy between non-basic beliefs and basic beliefs. What you call basic beliefs are beliefs that we do not have good criticism of, as opposed to being immune to criticism.critical rationalist
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PST
T7
You described yourself “as being agnostic on materialism” (137).
Do you believe in God?
Yes. There is nothing incompatible with the two statements.JSmith
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PST
JS
You described yourself "as being agnostic on materialism" (137).
Do you believe in God?tribune7
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PST
TWSYF
If you agreed that it was objectively wrong, you would actually be in a position to say that it was right or wrong based on some objective standard. Otheriwse it is just your opinion.
Supported by rational, logical, evidence based examination. As opposed to your opinion that it is objective with no evidence supported rationale to support it? I think that mine carries more weight.
By the way, your opinion means very little to me and I am sure that mine means very little to you. How does natural selection fix that problem?
Why should it. My respect for a person’s opinion is based on how rationally sound the opinion is. It is independent of their world view, religion or political stripe. I assume you do the same.
No way that JS believes in any universal moral value. That would be too much like inching toward God. Poor soul would never do that.
Who said I didn’t believe in God?JSmith
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PST
t7 @ 201: No way that JS believes in any universal moral value. That would be too much like inching toward God. Poor soul would never do that.Truth Will Set You Free
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PST
JS @ 199: By the way, your opinion means very little to me and I am sure that mine means very little to you. How does natural selection (or some other Darwinian mechanism) fix that problem?Truth Will Set You Free
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PST
So it is wrong because it is illogical? Says who? Are you seriously saying that if you examined it rationally that you wouldn’t conclude that it is wrong?
You claim "We (as in human beings) are rational animals." So why do some human beings rape children.?
And I would not examine it "rationally". I would examine it emotionally, and I would know with certainty that I would be correct to treat it with emotion (anger, loathing) because it offends the spirit in me that the Power That Is has given us.
Now, you have asked for some absolute universal moral value. How about "love"? Would you agree that that is an absolute universal moral value?tribune7
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PST
A/mat are illogical...and thus wrong.
JS @ 199: "How does that change if I agreed that it was objectively wrong?"
If you agreed that it was objectively wrong, you would actually be in a position to say that it was right or wrong based on some objective standard. Otheriwse it is just your opinion.Truth Will Set You Free
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PST
T7
So you don’t think someone might rationally conclude he could be hurt by helping you?
The first thing they teach you in any first aid course is to never provide first aid if it is dangerous to you to do so. The only thing worse than one injured person is two injured people.
Suppose if it is mere inconvenience and he rationally concludes his time is better used watching television?
Some people will do this. Probably more than you think. I prefer to play the odds.
And if we are “rational animals” why do some rape children? The reality might bother you but it is the reality and you are ignoring it.
Some are more rational than others. I thought that would become obvious by reading comments on this blog. How am I ignoring the fact that some people rape children?
Yes. People have the free will to lie and violate the tenets of the principles they claim to hold especially when it advances their cause.
Agreed.
So it is wrong because it is illogical? Says who?
Are you seriously saying that if you examined it rationally that you wouldn’t conclude that it is wrong?
It would make perfect sense to the perpetrator.
How does that change if I agreed that it was objectively wrong?
And to succeed in his crime much less get away with it for years with it would require reasoning and planning.
And a cover-up by church authority, all the way up to the Pope.JSmith
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PST
JS
Why should someone help you? We are rational animals.
So you don't think someone might rationally conclude he could be hurt by helping you? Suppose if it is mere inconvenience and he rationally concludes his time is better used watching television?
And if we are "rational animals" why do some rape children? The reality might bother you but it is the reality and you are ignoring it.
What about free will (with regard to the observation regarding people who violate the tenets of the principles they claim to hold.)
Yes. People have the free will to lie and violate the tenets of the principles they claim to hold especially when it advances their cause.
So you wouldn’t judge that a priest who rapes a child is doing something wrong but merely observe he didn’t follow his principles? . . .No. I would conclude that what he did was wrong because it would not pass a rational, logical, evidence based examination.
So it is wrong because it is illogical? Says who? It would make perfect sense to the perpetrator. And to succeed in his crime much less get away with it for years would require reasoning and planning.tribune7
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PST
JS:
I would conclude that what he did was wrong because it would not pass a rational, logical, evidence based examination
In short, there is warranted, credibly true and reliable belief that such an act is wrongful or evil. That is, we here have acknowledgement of moral knowledge.
KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PST
SB
KF, yes. It really is an odd thing that these people cannot even approach the concept of objective reality, or the “what is,” without denying its existence or trying to remake it in the image of their own personal fantasies.
I must have missed where I said that I don’t accept objective realities. This discussion is about whether our morals are objectively derived or objectively derived. I think I even said that it is probably an objective fact that we are under moral governance. It is what this moral governance is acting on that is in contention.JSmith
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PST
T7
Why should someone help you?
We are rational animals. We can see past immediate self gratification. I know that if I help you, you are more likely to help me. We both benefit.
I think most do too. OTOH, if someone claims to believe in something and violate the tenets of that belief, I’d suspect he doesn’t.
What about free will. This sort of argument is the same one that some people use to argue that Christians never commit atrocities. If they did, then they weren’t true Christians. It’s nice to have your cake and eat it too.
So you wouldn’t judge that a priest who rapes a child is doing something wrong but merely observe he didn’t follow his principles?
No. I would conclude that what he did was wrong because it would not pass a rational, logical, evidence based examination.JSmith
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PST
SB
Sorry, but that doesn’t work. When you say that slavery *is* wrong, which is an objective formation, when you really mean that it merely *seems* wrong to you, which is a subjective formulation, then you are trying to have it both ways. That is irrational.
You are just arguing over semantics, like WJM does when he uses terms like ‘preference of ice cream’. I could just as easily respond with something like, ‘slavery doesn’t seem wrong to you?’ But I won’t ask that because it would be a dishonest tactic. I say that slavery *is* wrong because it cannot survive a rational, logical, evidence based examination. Any examination conducted by humans may use objective facts but it is ultimately subjective in nature.
Social order is an objective, universal, and absolute good. It is not a matter if subjective opinion. It follows, then, that any moral code that that preserves the social order is also objective in nature.
No, social order is not an objective, universal and absolute good. The society in Orwell’s 1984 was very ordered. The Indian society under the caste system was very ordered. North Korean society is very ordered. I’m sure that is not what you intended to say. There is far more to society than just being ordered.
But we are not talking about whether or not a stable society is objectively good. We are talking about the “moral” actions that we undertake in order to obtain that “objectively” good society. I have never said that there were not objective facts, or self-evident truths. That would be a very different discussion. We are talking about whether or not our morally based actions are objectively, self-evidently good. And I argue that they are not.
If humans have a nature, then there is a morality proper to human nature that preceded human nature. That should be obvious. Apparently, you deny the fact of human nature.
No, I accept that there is a human nature. For example, we are gregarious, we are curious, etc. I also accept that there are moral values that allow human societies to thrive. But these values can change based on the conditions humans find themselves. For example, the values optimal for a small interrelated agrarian population will be different than those for a city of ten million people of different ethnic and religious background. For example, the concept of and respect for personal property we’re very different for Euoropeans and native Americans. They both worked effectively for each group but they were not compatible when the societies came together.
KF is obviously right. There are only two standards for establishing civil law. It’s either the natural moral law or “might makes right,” which can manifest itself either as tyranny by the few or tyranny by the many. Again, if, as you claim, you are familiar with the natural moral law, then you would already know that.
I am familiar with NML. I just think that it is nonsense at least in the way it is being used here. KF’s nonsense claim completely ignores reason and social agreement. But admitting that would undermine his world view.
The best way to reduce abortions is to promote the nuclear family, provide moral education, and stop the government from promoting the dangerous illusion of sex without consequences. If you treat children like animals, then they will behave like animals.
That didn’t work in the 1800s or 1900s. Why do you think it would work now? The abortion problem will not be solved by simply making it illegal. Or supporting the nuclear family. It will take a multi-pronged approach. And pretending that humans aren’t sexual animals will only make it worse. We have to acknowledge the reality that people are going to have sex and make sure that they have the knowledge and tools to make good decisions. A good example to look at is smoking. Smoking rates have dramatically decreased, largely through education efforts.JSmith
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PST
@stephenB
Those Newtonians running their theory into the ground, when they explain the motions of apples *and* planets and all objects we know of! And then those general relativists, explaining the motions of those things at very high speeds!
Since I don’t have an example of a self evident truth that we have good criticism of, I’ll just say something vague, like running their theory into the ground.critical rationalist
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PST
SB, That is where ever so many grotesque ideologies, agendas and radical pushes come from. They refuse to acknowledge reality as it is and view those who seek to recognise and live with reality as it is -- seeking truth to know and live by it -- with extreme suspicion or hostility. In short, the project of science to seek to accurately observe, describe, understand and perhaps soundly respond to and where possible influence the world for the better is dying. Indeed, evolutionary materialist scientism and its fellow travellers are a big part of the problem. Then, they refuse to recognise that shaping policy, law and society on lies and fantasies is a road to ruin. It doesn't matter if you dress up such lies and fantasies in a lab coat or a doctor's coat. We would be ill-advised to put governance power in such hands. The current state of the university is a warning. And that's also why throwing more and more money at the problem to drive through the agendas is proving to be counter-productive. Then, the next resort is to outlaw and turn policing agencies on those who dare question the agenda.The recent case where it sounds now -- as in, there is a whistle blower -- like sniper teams were sent out against traditional ranchers and those who went to put their own bodies between the out of control BLM and another policing agency mass killing event should be a wake up call. KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PST
SB to CR: "That is not a straight answer. That is an evasion."
Of course. CR proves regularly on these pages that he is a coward. He runs like a scalded hound every time someone asks him to put up or shut up. What he apparently fails to realize is that his evasions are themselves all too telling.Barry Arrington
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PST
Kf
And more broadly, this discussion is on a particular subset of knowledge. We already had a discussion on what knowledge (as is typically used) is, and I successfully defended the definition that knowledge (in the weak, commonly used sense) is warranted, credibly true — and so also, reliable — belief. Where, truth says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Here, we have turned to a narrower question, certain truths that have special properties that make them utterly certain in their warrant so they are not merely credibly true but are undeniably true on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. These, were discussed in the OP above.
KF, yes. It really is an odd thing that these people cannot even approach the concept of objective reality, or the "what is," without denying its existence or trying to remake it in the image of their own personal fantasies.StephenB
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PST
SB, sadly, yes. Let us weep for what our leading lights have done to reduce people to this level, let us pray, then let us continue to provide steps towards a sounder alternative. KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PST
F/N: A point by JS I picked up at 56 I believe is worth hihghlighting again: “We all think that our moral beliefs are correct. You only have to read KF’s comments to know that this is true.” By definition, of course, if someone actually believes something, s/he has a degree of significant confidence that it is true. Whether that confidence is well-grounded is a different matter. So, JS here wishes to verbally dismiss me for the thought-crime of actually having morally themed beliefs. Think about that, then think about the context highlighted since the OP and beyond, that all our life of the mind is tinged indelibly with implicitly accepted duties of care to truth, sound reasoning, fairness, the right and more. Indeed in the clipped remark, JS seems to imagine that his evidently implied belief that there are no credible moral truths worthy of being accepted, OUGHT to prevail over that whatever, KF's view, that such things exist. The self-referential incoherence and lack of thinking through the matter are clear. And in the 100+ remarks since, sadly, things have got no better. Folks, weep for the state of our civilisation on this New Year Day in the year of our Lord 2018. KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PST
CR:
I am suggesting you have confused basic, self-evident truths with beliefs that have survived criticism. Criticisms failing is not equivalent to an idea is immune to criticism.
But, by all means, can you give an example of a “self-evident truth” that we have good criticisms of? Are you denying that, in choosing this example, your was compared it to a number of other examples?
You are really running your pet paradigm into the ground. As a man once said, "if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." This problem is not a nail and you are using the wrong tool. Self evident truths have nothing at all to do with "criticism," even if criticism happens to be your thing.StephenB
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PST
SB: Is it is wrong to torture babies for pleasure? Or do you have some question about it? A straight answer to a straight question would be appreciated.
CR
The straight answer is, what we actually face are concrete moral problems,
That is not a straight answer. That is an evasion.StephenB
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PST
CR
"Evil is a lack of knowledge"
I think lack of wisdom rather than knowledge is evil or leads to evil. Plenty of our atheist friends here may posses knowledge but seem to lack wisdom. We'll help you gain wisdom but to do that, knowledge is not enough. To gain wisdom you have to be contemplative, humble and grateful. I predict hard work ahead of us :-)
Happy New YearEugen
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PST
F/N: This exchange outlined by SB from 146 and its pickup by CR are sadly instructive:
SB: Is it wrong to torture babies for pleasure? Or do you have some question about it? A straight answer to a straight question would be appreciated.
J Smith: Since I would not like this to happen to my children, I would not like to see it happen to others. Basic golden rule, simple rational logic.
[SB:] So clearly, you were describing your morality in terms of likes and dislikes, in much the same way others like or dislike certain flavors of ice cream. The whole point of morality is to prompt us to do the right thing even when we don’t *like* it.
Now, CR, 179:
The straight answer is, what we actually face are concrete moral problems. We find ourselves in a position to take some action, opposed to a number of other options, or even no action at all. And those choices are in a moral context. Our knowledge of what we should do in those concrete situations is moral knowledge.
It’s not even clear that you think there is such a thing as a moral problem to solve. If morality isn’t actually about solving concrete moral problems, then what is about?
So, like someone in a spelling bee, I’ll ask you to rephrase the question. Use it in the form of a moral problem to solve.
For example, when faced with a choice of wanting to have fun with my friends, do I find myself asking, “should we go see a movie, or go out for dinner at that new restaurant, or, this might sound a bit crazy, but what about torturing babies?”
As one of these “non-theists”, I’m suggesting there is no infallible source of moral knowledge in the form of a herd-mentality or some authority. Nor is evil isn’t some cosmic supernatural force that tempts us, etc. Evil is a lack of knowledge. There will always be room for improvement via criticism. The alternative sounds rather, well, frightening, in that it implies there can be no better solutions to moral problems than what we already have.
New moral knowledge results in better moral problems to solve, etc.
In the context of the OP, this is actually a specific, real world case, with an eight year old boy on his way home from school as victim of some monster's sick attack (who, so far as I know is still out there, he was never caught). So, we first know CR has either failed to do his home work of actually reading the context before commenting adversely, or thinks he can get a rhetorical opening by pretending that this is a mere vague hypothetical exercise.
The problem, as stated in the OP is quite specific, though suppressing details out of respect for a still grieving family bereft of a son who went out to school as usual and was ambushed on his way home by someone seeking "fun" we suppose at the expense of personal violation and the life that was taken in the process.
So, all of the evasive talking points just above come down to failure or refusal to face facts that were readily accessible, compounded by the usual rhetoric about criticism.
All boils down to, refusal of a straight answer.
We can therefore freely infer that CR cannot directly deny that the act was evil, but evades admitting it as self-evident truth would devastate his clever scheme of thought.
Oh yes, there is the attempt to redefine evil as "lack of knowledge." The evidence of this case is, that the monster knew what he did was wrong and that he was acting against such will, voice and force as an eight year old could exert. He BOUND and GAGGED his victim. He ambushed the victim, then carried out his crime where detection while in progress was unlikely then concealed his crime's result. Those are strong marks of knowing this was wrong and that others would intervene as they knew this was wrong.
No, evil is not a synonym for ignorance.
Indeed, many who have faced an existential struggle to escape its entangling clutches will testify with Paul of Tarsus:
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be the law [of my inner self], that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully delight in the law of God in my inner self [with my new nature], 23 but I see a different law and rule of action in the members of my body [in its appetites and desires], waging war against the law of my mind and subduing me and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is within my members. 24 Wretched and miserable man that I am! Who will [rescue me and] set me free from this body of death [this corrupt, mortal existence]? [AMP]
He knows and delights in what is good, he strives to achieve it, but finds himself in bondage to habitual, addictive, enslaving evils. He needs a power greater than himself to overcome and indeed in the next chapter that is exactly what he describes. Through living encounter with God in the face of Jesus, and by the Holy Spirit inhabiting his inner man a fresh, superior dynamic empowers him to escape the bondage of evils as he walks in the Spirit.
The 12 Step type programme describes this sort of pattern in more generic terms, as AA's Big Book describes.
Where, too, the lesson is obvious. There are many evils that are particularly entangling, enslaving and destructive. If one does not nibble at the bait, one will not be hooked and will not face a desperate, possibly life-long existential struggle to keep from being destroyed.
Which, we accept as a matter of course in teaching people to avoid cigarettes and gradually restricting access to advertising and the product itself. Last time I saw a pack up close, it had large-type explicit warning labels set apart in a distinct text box. In short, we all know that there are addictive, habituating, destructive evils and know that the community can spend efforts to reduce their incidence. The latest fad I see is to resort to so-called E-Cigarettes that dose out Nicotine but reportedly avoid tars -- where nicotine is a known poison.
But of course, other destructive evils are more entrenched in power structures and lobby to avoid the tobacco treatment. And in some cases they are so socially entrenched and readily accessible that attempts to prohibit only inadvertently entrench organised crime -- alcohol and the US experiment with prohibition come to mind. Currently, it seems the war with ganja is heading for defeat and surrender in many jurisdictions. Though, I personally testify to seeing people horrifically zombified and reduced to shambling along like invalids, more or less permanently spaced out by the more potent varieties.
And of course, the longstanding, sounder understanding of evil is that it is not an independent entity nor is it mere lack of knowledge. No, it is the wrenching, perversion, frustration or privation of what is good out of its proper end. The proper end of this eight year old boy was not to be seized and have his body used for the sick pleasure of a monster, then to have his life taken from him and have his remains hidden from view for long enough for the monster to make his getaway.
This understanding is readily available but was of course studiously ignored.
From all of this, we may now proceed to 180, where he then challenges me:
[To KF:] But, by all means, can you give an example of a “self-evident truth” that we have good criticisms of? Are you denying that, in choosing this example, [you] compared it to a number of other examples?
Still waiting….
Here we see the insincerity at work even more directly. CR seems to actually know (or at minimum should know) that I have raised a real world case in specifying the child abduction example, key yardstick case on moral truth; and, had he looked at the OP he would have readily seen that I also addressed the issue that our whole life of the mind is inescapably bound up with moral government through patent duties of care to truth, sound reasoning, fairness and justice etc. Duties, that it seems CR is adroitly side-stepping.
Taking the wider view that he is looking at cases of self-evidence, the OP will also reveal that I gave several cases of general SET's, and two main ones on moral SET's.
In speaking of a very vague term "good criticism," he seems to want us to show SET's overthrown by critique. In fact, critique must rely on consciousness, the principles that stem from distinct identity (starting with setting out glyphs to form words), principles of argument resting on LOI, LNC, LEM etc. In short, he knows or should know that such are undeniable, on pain of patent absurdity. He cannot counter this, so he tries to turn the matter around and use the strength of establishing that something is self-evidently true against it. Once so established a SET A is known to be such that trying to assert ~A is absurd at once. That is why it is utterly certain.
Let's take up his more complete form in 157:
I am suggesting you have confused basic, self-evident truths with beliefs that have survived criticism. Criticisms failing is not equivalent to an idea is immune to criticism.
But, by all means, can you give an example of a “self-evident truth” that we have good criticisms of? Are you denying that, in choosing this example, your was compared it to a number of other examples?
Here, CR simply refuses to recognise that just to write this out, he is forced to rely on distinct identity even just of letters. He has his crooked yardstick and he will challenge the accuracy and soundness of a plumbline that challenges his yardstick as crooked. (Indeed, earlier he tried to suggest that the plumbline metaphor is flawed because a nearby mass might pull it to the side, which I showed would likely exert a force of ~ 10^-9 N, compared to about 1 N for a typical bob. He of course seemed clueless on the context where the plumbob is a common metaphor for the naturally straight and upright precisely because of its longstanding utility in construction.)
And more broadly, this discussion is on a particular subset of knowledge. We already had a discussion on what knowledge (as is typically used) is, and I successfully defended the definition that knowledge (in the weak, commonly used sense) is warranted, credibly true -- and so also, reliable -- belief. Where, truth says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Here, we have turned to a narrower question, certain truths that have special properties that make them utterly certain in their warrant so they are not merely credibly true but are undeniably true on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. These, were discussed in the OP above.
In short, again and again, we see evasion of what is clearly established.
KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PST
JS
Absolutely. In the same circumstance, would you accept help from someone who believed in subjective morality? I really don’t understand your point.
Why should someone help you?
Hmmm. Or academics or Hollywood producers. Sure. But I don’t recall that they take the same paths as priests.
So?
If someone claims to believe in objective morality does he? Don’t know. I suspect most do.
I think most do too. OTOH, if someone claims to believe in something and violate the tenets of that belief, I'd suspect he doesn't.
And even if he does how could you judge that the objective morality he claims to believe is wrong? .. . .I wouldn’t presume to. Only that he didn’t follow it.
So you wouldn't judge that a priest who rapes a child is doing something wrong but merely observe he didn't follow his principles?tribune7
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PST
@StephanB
The best way to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies is to prevent the problem all together via better contraceptives. That doesn’t stop cases of rape or dangerous pregnancies.
What we need are better solutions. That would be moral knowledge. Unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us from achieving them is knowing how. For example, we have already created artificial wombs for late term lamb pregnancies. With refinement we could transfer any human pregnancy into such a womb. Or into the womb of a mother that could not conceive, etc.critical rationalist
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PST
J Smith
No. I say that by all means of reasoning, logic and evidence, it [slavery] is wrong. That is not the same as saying that it is objectively wrong.
Sorry, but that doesn’t work. When you say that slavery *is* wrong, which is an objective formation, when you really mean that it merely *seems* wrong to you, which is a subjective formulation, then you are trying to have it both ways. That is irrational.
SB: You mean that you really don’t understand that the civil law (identity theft is illegal) was shaped by the Natural Moral Law (stealing is wrong)?
Not stealing is also shaped by being able to live in a social group. It doesn’t need any higher reason.
Social order is an objective, universal, and absolute good. It is not a matter if subjective opinion. It follows, then, that any moral code that that preserves the social order is also objective in nature.
SB: We don’t use our reason to create a moral code proper to human nature. We use our reason to discover the one that is already there.
How do you know this? Where does it reside before we discover it? How does it deal with changes in technology?
If humans have a nature, then there is a morality proper to human nature that preceded human nature. That should be obvious. Apparently, you deny the fact of human nature.
If you want to use KF’s rediculous “ might and manipulation” makes right, you can do so. But what he always excludes from that phrase is social agreement.
KF is obviously right. There are only two standards for establishing civil law. It’s either the natural moral law or “might makes right,” which can manifest itself either as tyranny by the few or tyranny by the many. Again, if, as you claim, you are familiar with the natural moral law, then you would already know that.
But I also noticed that you didn’t answer the question. What is more morally important, reducing abortions or making it illegal even though it won’t reduce abortions and will put women at increased risk? I opt for the former.
The best way to reduce abortions is to promote the nuclear family, provide moral education, and stop the government from promoting the dangerous illusion of sex without consequences. If you treat children like animals, then they will behave like animals.StephenB
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PST
@KF
But, by all means, can you give an example of a “self-evident truth” that we have good criticisms of? Are you denying that, in choosing this example, [you] compared it to a number of other examples?
Still waiting....critical rationalist
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PST
Is it is wrong to torture babies for pleasure? Or do you have some question about it? A straight answer to a straight question would be appreciated.
The straight answer is, what we actually face are concrete moral problems. We find ourselves in a position to take some action, opposed to a number of other options, or even no action at all. And those choices are in a moral context. Our knowledge of what we should do in those concrete situations is moral knowledge.
It's not even clear that you think there is such a thing as a moral problem to solve. If morality isn't actually about solving concrete moral problems, then what is about?
So, like someone in a spelling bee, I'll ask you to rephrase the question. Use it in the form of a moral problem to solve.
For example, when faced with a choice of wanting to have fun with my friends, do I find myself asking, "should we go see a movie, or go out for dinner at that new restaurant, or, this might sound a bit crazy, but what about torturing babies?"
As one of these "non-theists", I'm suggesting there is no infallible source of moral knowledge in the form of a herd-mentality or some authority. Nor is evil isn't some cosmic supernatural force that tempts us, etc. Evil is a lack of knowledge. There will always be room for improvement via criticism. The alternative sounds rather, well, frightening, in that it implies there can be no better solutions to moral problems than what we already have.
New moral knowledge results in better moral problems to solve, etc. And since it is genuinely created, we cannot predict the impact it will have. For example, It's not that people thought the likelihood of networking computers together would topple dictatorships. They simply didn't conceive of it at all. So, you could say that we will always be at the beginning of knowledge, including moral knowledge, just as the room numbers of all guests in Hilbert's hotel are always at the beginning of those numbers.critical rationalist
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PST
SB
No we don’t. I say that it is wrong and you say that it seems wrong to you. Do you not yet understand the difference?
No. I say that by all means of reasoning, logic and evidence, it is wrong. That is not the same as saying that it is objectively wrong.
You are not unqualified to comment on the natural moral law because you disagree with me. You are unqualified because you know nothing about the subject. Surely, you will acknowledge that point.
Actually I disagree because I know a lot about it. That is why I say that it doesn’t exist. At least not in the way that you think it does.
You mean that you really don’t understand that the civil law (identity theft is illegal) was shaped by the Natural Moral Law (stealing is wrong)?
Not stealing is also shaped by being able to live in a social group. It doesn’t need any higher reason.
No. We don’t use our reason to create a moral code proper to human nature. We use our reason to discover the one that is already there.
How do you know this? Where does it reside before we discover it? How does it deal with changes in technology?
Then you mislead me and your readers. You said that slavery *is* wrong, but what you really meant is that it merely *seems wrong to you.
There was no misleading. I conclude that slavery and spousal abuse is wrong for rational reasons. That does not make it objective or binding on others. But if most of society agrees with me, which it does at this point, we can force others to accept this. If you want to use KF’s rediculous “ might and manipulation” makes right, you can do so. But what he always excludes from that phrase is social agreement.
Oh, I get it. You are saying, “I am personally opposed to abortion, but I support without qualification all the legislators who kill those infernal little pests.” Your previous claim that you do not support abortion was a fraud.
Nonsense. I don’t support/condone smoking, drinking or marijuana, but I do not favour making them illegal. We have already seen that the consequences are worse than the activity. But I also noticed that you didn’t answer the question. What is more morally important, reducing abortions or making it illegal even though it won’t reduce abortions and will put women at increased risk? I opt for the former.
According to the baby killing machine called Planned Parenthood, an organization that you probably support, “more than half of women obtaining abortions (54%) had been using a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.” Anyone who studies the statistics knows that birth control always leads to abortion.” Notice that I am presenting objective facts and you are relying on your subjective opinion.
Check out stats on countries that have comprehensive and early sex education and unrestricted birth control. They have all seen a reduction in u wanted pregnancies and abortions.
Well, off to a new year’s party. I hope you have i nice evening. It has been nice talking to you.JSmith
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.
