>>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
J Smith
We both agree that slavery is wrong.
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?
How do you know that I am not qualified?
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.
Sorry. I wasn’t sure where you were going with that. Still don’t.
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)?
Then you agree that we must rationalize and reason for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Do you realize that this is what is meant by subjective?
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. That you think reason can create a moral code indicates that you are not using your reason.
Everything has a nature, even your automobile. Do you use your reason to create a new subjective standard for your gas tank and fill it with water? Or, do you honor the objective standard that is already in place and fill it with gasoline?
SB: All erroneous conclusions about objective truths are subjectively based.
Nice circular reasoning.
No, I was simply correcting your irrational formulation.
I never said that slavery and spousal abuse were objectively wrong.
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. I thought that you had made some intellectual progress when such was not the case. Apparently, you don't understand that "is" refers to what is objectively true and "seems" refers to what one subjectively perceives to be true.
And rather than make it illegal just to assuage our conscience, I prefer to promote actions that have actually been shown to reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates.
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.
Comprehensive, non judgmental sex education from an early age and unrestricted access to birth control.
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.StephenB
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PST
JS, 2 + 3 = ___ ? Is or is that not self evident, why? KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PST
D
It would seem that as a practical empirical matter, for human beings “morality” is purely subjective. The Carthaginian example seems to make that clear. There doesn’t seem to be any sort of built-in moral “compass”, or instinctual morality, at least for the great majority of mankind. It seems to be a learned behavior and belief system with accompanying emotions.
That is what I have been trying to say.
This still leaves open the question of whether or not there is ultimately an objective, absolute set of moral principles that are part of a higher, spiritual order of reality. In my opinion there is, but I don’t think this can be proven by some logical schema, and of course not by quoting holy books.
I am still agnostic on the objective aspect, but otherwise, I think you are bang on.
I think there is empirical evidence, however. An example is the very many accounts of near-death experiences, in which a Golden Rule-like morality is inextricably embedded in parts of the experiences such as the life review.
Except that we can replicate NDE using chemical and other physical changes to the brain. But you did mention the golden rule. This is the closest we get to a common moral value that is seen throughout almost all societies. But it is also a rule that can very easily be figured out from first principles.
Again, I am not certain that there are no objective moral principles. Just that if they exist, they seem to go on vacation quite frequently. Not what I would expect from an objective principle.JSmith
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PST
T7
There isn’t one. There are, however, people who would happily see you as an object to be used. Would you like those of us who believe in objective morality to back you up if they should try?
Absolutely. In the same circumstance, would you accept help from someone who believed in subjective morality? I really don’t understand your point.
Hmmm. Or academics or Hollywood producers.
Sure. But I don’t recall that they take the same paths as priests.
If someone claims to believe in objective morality does he?
Don’t know. I suspect most do.
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.JSmith
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PST
JS: If you seem to struggle with that one is conscious is self-evident, or that error exists is undeniable, etc, it is not he-said vs he-said. I'm afraid, you have given utterly convincing demonstrations that you lack basic qualification to reason responsibly; much less handle advanced topics. SB's ability to reason is not under question. And increasingly, sadly, in a very different way, neither is yours. KF
PS: BTW, SB was not question-begging in pointing out that errors on objective truths are of subjective character. Someone made a mistake, which is a subjective phenomenon. We all remember getting sums wrong in school. Objective truths are credibly accurate to reality per good warrant. Such as, that my PC ran into difficulties a week ago requiring HDD replacement. Or, that my Father passed on in my presence and that of a caregiver in July this year, with his last words being the surrendering of his spirit to the Lord he loved for many decades.kairosfocus
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PST
KF, well said.tribune7
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PST
Trib, re:
169
tribune7December 31, 2017 at 4:36 pm (Edit)
2 + 3 = 5 is also self-evident and undeniable
If we don’t accept that there are self-evident, undeniable and eternal truths we will all end up like Nietzsche
That is exactly the problem we are facing, 170+ comments later. Weep for our civilisation stubbornly standing on the cracking, crumbling brink of an abyss. With nukes in play in the hands of people who think like we have been seeing. KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PST
Re JS: yet another distractor. Perhaps he has not had to face the fact of moral struggle and enslaving iniquity. This is not a matter of "priests" in particular but of men and women from every walk of life with a huge variety of bondages to the acknowledged wrong. The annals of Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step type programmes of recovery from ruinous addictions and habits should serve as grim warning. And that is in fact a good point of reference for the millions who have found recovery from all sorts of life-ruining bondages through the transforming power of God. But of course, that does not serve the agenda of those who set out not simply to deal with a particular scandal, but to taint the Christian faith in general. On that, the proof lies in the blatant one-sidedness, which is sustained now in the teeth of evidence that the very media were and are riddled with the like challenges. Again, a note for record, not an invitation to a side-track and rhetorical crocodile death roll. KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PST
2 + 3 = 5 is also self-evident and undeniable
If we don't accept that there are self-evident, undeniable and eternal truths we will all end up like Nietzschetribune7
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PST
A few thoughts on this lengthy discussion.
The "morality" (if you could call it that) leading from cold logic and rationality combined with materialism (or scientism) leads inexorably to a hell on earth. The fourth affirmation of Charles Tart's The Western Creed expresses this quite well:
"(1) - I believe in the material universe as the only and ultimate reality, a universe controlled by fixed physical laws and blind chance.
(2) - I affirm that the universe has no creator, no objective purpose, and no objective meaning or destiny.
(3) - I maintain that all ideas about God or gods, supernatural beings, prophets and saviors, or other nonphysical beings or forces are superstitions and delusions. Life and consciousness are totally identical to physical processes, and arose from chance interactions of blind physical forces. Like the rest of life, my life and consciousness have no objective purpose, meaning, or destiny.
(4) - I believe that all judgments, values, and moralities, whether my own or others', are subjective, arising solely from biological determinants, personal history, and chance. Free will is an illusion. Therefore, the most rational values I can personally live by must be based on the knowledge that for me what pleases me is Good, what pains me is Bad. Those who please me or help me avoid pain are my friends; those who pain me or keep me from my pleasures are my enemies. Rationality requires that friends and enemies be used in ways that maximize my pleasure and minimize my pain.
(5) - I affirm that churches have no real use other than social support; that there are no objective sins to commit or be forgiven for; that there is no retribution for sin or reward for virtue other than that which I can arrange, directly or through others. Virtue for me is getting what I want without being caught and punished by others.
(6) - I maintain that the death of the body is the death of the mind. There is no afterlife, and all hope for such is nonsense"
It is also clear that human beings can have religious/spiritual belief systems that can lead them to a morality and to acts which we would consider inherently evil. The ancient Carthaginians are a case in point, where for centuries they burned their young children alive as sacrifices to their gods. Apparently, even the ancient Greeks and Romans who wrote about this had more interest in the practice as an oddity rather than as evil. Different cultures and belief systems.
It would seem that as a practical empirical matter, for human beings "morality" is purely subjective. The Carthaginian example seems to make that clear. There doesn't seem to be any sort of built-in moral "compass", or instinctual morality, at least for the great majority of mankind. It seems to be a learned behavior and belief system with accompanying emotions.
This still leaves open the question of whether or not there is ultimately an objective, absolute set of moral principles that are part of a higher, spiritual order of reality. In my opinion there is, but I don't think this can be proven by some logical schema, and of course not by quoting holy books.
I think there is empirical evidence, however. An example is the very many accounts of near-death experiences, in which a Golden Rule-like morality is inextricably embedded in parts of the experiences such as the life review. There is extensive veridical evidence from NDE accounts that attest to the reality of the experiences. If NDEs are true glimpses of a spiritual existence following physical death, then some sort of Judeo-Christian-like morality may be an objective reality.doubter
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PST
F/N: See WHY I began with SET's in general in the OP? KF
PS: Just to refresh memories:
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).
kairosfocus
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PST
JS
Some moral value/action that has universal acceptance.
There isn't one. There are, however, people who would happily see you as an object to be used. Would you like those of us who believe in objective morality to back you up if they should try?
So why do people rape children? I don’t know. You should ask them. You could start with the hundreds of priests who have done so; people who believe in objective morality.
Hmmm. Or academics or Hollywood producers. If someone claims to believe in objective morality does he? And even if he does how could you judge that the objective morality he claims to believe is wrong?tribune7
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PST
Re JS et al: In the teeth of a demonstration of self evidence, we see oh you are afraid to examine. The point on how some wedded to a crooked yardstick as standard of straightness and accuracy will be found clinging to absurdity in the face of a major form of warrant speaks, quite sadly. The point of being induced to make crookedness the standard of straightness is that the genuinely straight cannot pass such a standard. Somehow, there is inexplicable resistance to: SET's are truths which (for one of sufficient experience and understanding to be able to cogently address them) will be seen as true, and as necessarily true on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial. Where, proposition A is as its denial ~A is reduced to absurdity is a well-known standard argument form; though for SET's it is not a proof as suc; as, for instance LOI, LNC and LEM are necessarily involved in any attempted discussion of them, we cannot but use them. The OP offers a set of examples, which of course have been constantly evaded for over 150 comments now. No, not everyone will acknowledge a SET, some because they lack the base to understand, others because they are locked into schemes of thought that make it too costly in cognitive dissonance to acknowledge. See how something as simple as that to be conscious is SET, or that error exists is undeniable, or that 2 + 3 = 5, or that once distinct identity is, LOI, LNC and LEM instantly hold and also two-ness thus the set of naturals obtains has been evaded or dismissed for over 150 comments by people of obvious relatively high educational attainment. On my experience, as a rule that is because to frankly face and acknowledge the manifest reality of SET's would shatter a whole worldview and linked life and/or socio-cultural agenda. Pons asinorum. Folks, weep: this is where our civilisation has reached even as it stands on the crumbling brink of an abyss. KF
PS: As for abortion, we note that the ongoing holocaust of our posterity in the womb advances at a million victims per week on a total easily beyond 800 millions in 40+ years. Enabling behaviour shaped by and locking in the worst mass blood guilt in history; utterly warping ability to think straight on matters moral.kairosfocus
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PST
T7
What evidence do you want?
Some moral value/action that has universal acceptance.
So why do people rape children?
I don’t know. You should ask them. You could start with the hundreds of priests who have done so; people who believe in objective morality.JSmith
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PST
SB
Good. If you know they are wrong, then we have a meeting of the minds. To know that something is wrong, and not just that it seems wrong, is to know that it is objectively wrong.
No. It is still a subjective determination. Even though you and I might think that something is wrong, how do we convince someone who doesn’t? By telling him that it is objectively wrong? No. We do it by convincing him using rational, logical and evidence based arguments.
We both know that slavery is objectively wrong and, hopefully, we both know why it is wrong (it violates the inherent dignity of the human person).
No. We both agree that slavery is wrong. That is true. But why was it not so self-evidently and objectively true for several centuries? Claiming that it was just a brief aberration based on error won’t cut it. Far too many people, mostly European and American Christians, benefitted from it for far too long for it to have been a brief error in judgment. It was based on the self-evident truth of the day that black people were not fully human. A belief that long pre-dated Darwin. Hence the danger of declaring things to be objectively or self-evidently true.
I said anyone who understands the subject [NML]. That would include me.
How do you know that I am not qualified? Because I disagree with you? I’m sure you see where this leads.
Recall concerning the relationship between Tbou Shalt Not Steal and the illegal nature of identity theft, which you promptly ignored. Why did you do that?
Sorry. I wasn’t sure where you were going with that. Still don’t.
One cannot know the difference between right and wrong until he or she reaches the age of reason. Even then, much more education and life experience are needed.
Then you agree that we must rationalize and reason for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Do you realize that this is what is meant by subjective?
All erroneous conclusions about objective truths are subjectively based.
Nice circular reasoning.
Abortion is objectively wrong. Surely, after acknowledging that slavery and spousal abuse are objectively wrong, you are not going to deny that abortion is objectively wrong—are you?
I never said that slavery and spousal abuse were objectively wrong. If they were, why were they morally and legally acceptable for much of western history. No, we now consider them to be wrong because of rational, logical, evidence based examination. I.e. subjective conclusions.
And, yes, I don’t claim that abortion is objectively wrong. I claim that it is subjectively wrong. And rather than make it illegal just to assuage our conscience, I prefer to promote actions that have actually been shown to reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates. Comprehensive, non judgmental sex education from an early age and unrestricted access to birth control. We know from history that making abortion illegal does not eliminate it. In fact, the abortion rates are lower now than they were before RvW. So, the question must be asked; what is more morally important, making abortion illegal and not actually reduce abortions (at a significant increased risk to women), or keep it legal and reduce abortions?JSmith
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PST
JS
I am comfortable in the fact that not kidnapping, torturing, raping and killing a child will pass a rational, logical, evidence based examination.
So why do people rape children?tribune7
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PST
JS
I am just arguing that there is no evidence to convince me that it is objective.
What evidence do you want?tribune7
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PST
J Smith
By using rational, logical, evidence based examination, I know that they are counter to a long term stable society and therefore the thriving of myself, family and friends. Therefore, they are wrong.
Good. If you know they are wrong, then we have a meeting of the minds. To know that something is wrong, and not just that it seems wrong, is to know that it is objectively wrong. No problem there.
I don’t see that as a difficult process. Of course, you may think that an action that I think is morally acceptable (right) you may think is morally unacceptable (wrong). Sounds like every day life to me.
On a derivative problem that involves the complexity of extenuating circumstances, yes, but on the issue of basic morality and the attendant defining principles, no. We both know that slavery is objectively wrong and, hopefully, we both know why it is wrong (it violates the inherent dignity of the human person). On the other hand, we could have legitimate disagreement over whether indentured servitude is wrong.
SB: Whoever understands the principle of the NML is qualified to make that judgment.
Name them.
I said anyone who understands the subject. That would include me.
And provide me with the reason why they are qualified. And why those qualifications make the person infallible in judging. If you can’t, it still comes down to subjectivity
.
To understand a subject is to be qualified to discuss it. The best proof anyone can supply for being qualified to discuss a subject is to demonstrate that quality by answering intelligent objections. As I said before, there are subjective elements at the periphery, but not over the central issues. So I am not saying that subjectivity never enters in.
Meanwhile, I provided a specific example of the relationship between NML and civil law. Recall concerning the relationship between Tbou Shalt Not Steal and the illegal nature of identity theft, which you promptly ignored. Why did you do that?
Unless it is self-evident to every sane person on earth, how can you say it is self-evident? It may APPEAR to be self evident to the person who thinks it is, but that doesn’t make it really self-evident.
That is not true and I have explained several times why it is not true.
Since none of us has any reliable memories before the age of three, your claim that you know right from wrong instinctively is just an unsupported assertion. All you can really say is that from the time you can remember, your parents were constantly telling you what was right and wrong.
One cannot know the difference between right and wrong until he or she reaches the age of reason. Even then, much more education and life experience are needed.
SB: In other words, I know that abortion (defined as the deliberate killing of a fetus, not the incidental death that may occur when saving the life of a mother) is everywhere and always wrong.
But since there are a very large number of people who don’t believe it is wrong, it must be a subjective conclusion.
All erroneous conclusions about objective truths are subjectively based. Abortion is objectively wrong. Surely, after acknowledging that slavery and spousal abuse are objectively wrong, you are not going to deny that abortion is objectively wrong---are you?StephenB
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PST
CR
Criticisms failing is not equivalent to an idea is immune to criticism.
Which was exactly my point. I am comfortable in the fact that not kidnapping, torturing, raping and killing a child will pass a rational, logical, evidence based examination. As will many of our moral values. I don’t understand what KF and others are so afraid of. The obvious conclusion is that some of their more contentious moral values wouldn’t pass the test. The possibility that variations in human sexuality is a normal human condition is the one that jumps out at me. But maybe there is another.JSmith
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PST
CR:
>>
149
kairosfocusDecember 31, 2017 at 12:44 pm (Edit)
CR, why on earth are you raising an irrelevancy but to serve as a red herring distractor led out to a strawman caricature soaked in ad hominems, to be set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere? Kindly, go to the OP and read it to see what is on the agenda, why. You may not like it on track record, but that is your problem, not the fault of the issue. People have been misled to doubt knowledge in general and moral knowledge in particular. That is a serious danger to our civilisation. It needs to be addressed. As one step, on the table is a real world case: it is self-evident that it is evil to kidnap, bind, sexually assault and murder a young child; also, if we came across the monstrous deed in progress, we are duty bound to try to rescue or at least cry out for help. Can you acknowledge this? If you deny it, kindly tell us why. If you duck or evade it, that tells us that you know what is warranted but do not wish to acknowledge it. We in effect have the still grieving father sitting in front of us, with his surviving sons. Now, tell us what you would have to say to them. KF
>>
Let's hear what you have to say in the presence of a family with a son brutally ripped from among them by a monster, at age 8.
KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PST
@KF
I’m trying to bring up an irreverent subject?
Again, 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?critical rationalist
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PST
T7
Then you don’t know that morals are not objective and eternal.
I don’t believe that I said one way or the other. I am just arguing that there is no evidence to convince me that it is objective.
Knowledge of history shows that we are hopelessly lost without a savior.
Tell that to the Japanese, the Chinese, the Indians, the various indigenous peoples, etc.JSmith
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PST
JS asserts it is dishonest to try to equate the dislike you have for your child being killed with the dislike you have for chocolate ice cream.
Umm, JS, did you not notice that you used the word "dislike" twice? WJM argues that you base your morality on subjective preference (i.e., what you "like"). He argues further that people base their decision about which ice cream to eat based on subjective preference (i.e., which ice cream they "like").
Everyone concedes that the felt intensity of your subjective preference that your child not be killed is much greater than the felt intensity of your subjective preference for, say, vanilla ice cream.
OK. You feel the subjective preferences differently. They are still both subjective preferences.
This is glaringly obvious and admitted by all brave atheists. Why do you run from this conclusion and even call it "dishonest"? See The New Atheists Are Simpering Cowards linked at 142.
Do better.Barry Arrington
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PST
I honestly don’t know.
Then you don't know that morals are not objective and eternal.
But human actions throughout recorded history certainly suggest that it is a reasonable possibility. And, to be honest, if he did, it shows that he has faith in us and a high regard for the abilities he gave us.
Knowledge of history shows that we are hopelessly lost without a savior.tribune7
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PST
T7
Did God do this?
I honestly don’t know. But human actions throughout recorded history certainly suggest that it is a reasonable possibility. And, to be honest, if he did, it shows that he has faith in us and a high regard for the abilities he gave us. The idea gives me far more optimism than the idea that he had to instill moral values in us rather than letting us reason them out for ourselves.JSmith
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PST
SB
I think WJM was alluding to the fact that you describe your morality in exactly those terms:
No, he was using a dishonest tactic which he always uses. Trying to equate the dislike you have for your child being killed with the dislike you have for chocolate ice cream. You have not resorted to such dishonest tactics and is the reasoning I am enjoying our discussion. Frankly, life is too short to put up with dishonesty.JSmith
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PST
SB
That is an odd question coming from someone who, himself, doesn’t know they are wrong.
By using rational, logical, evidence based examination, I know that they are counter to a long term stable society and therefore the thriving of myself, family and friends. Therefore, they are wrong. I don’t see that as a difficult process. Of course, you may think that an action that I think is morally acceptable (right) you may think is morally unacceptable (wrong). Sounds like every day life to me.
Whoever understands the principle of the NML is qualified to make that judgment.
Name them. Or, at least one. And provide me with the reason why they are qualified. And why those qualifications make the person infallible in judging. If you can’t, it still comes down to subjectivity.
A thing can be self evident in two ways. It can be self evident in itself, or it can be self evident to someone.
Unless it is self-evident to every sane person on earth, how can you say it is self-evident? It may APPEAR to be self evident to the person who thinks it is, but that doesn’t make it really self-evident.
I know right from wrong instinctively in a primitive sense, but my education enabled me to fine tune my understanding.
Since none of us has any reliable memories before the age of three, your claim that you know right from wrong instinctively is just an unsupported assertion. All you can really say is that from the time you can remember, your parents were constantly telling you what was right and wrong.
In other words, I know that abortion (defined as the deliberate killing of a fetus, not the incidental death that may occur when saving the life of a mother) is everywhere and always wrong.
But since there are a very large number of people who don’t believe it is wrong, it must be a subjective conclusion.
I suspect that your so-called “rational, logical, evidence” allows you to rationalize this outrage. Is my suspicion correct?
No.JSmith
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PST
Re JS: this objector is commenting on an OP that replies to him, taking time to explain how we can in general warrant some things as self-evident. The SECOND case, after consciousness, is that error exists; which immediately entails that we must be careful in warrant. In the case of morals, no-one has here claimed to set up a scheme where every claim is warranted to self-evident certainty. Earlier, I took time to highlight that knowledge in general usage includes a weak form, warranted, credibly true (and reliable) belief. I pointed out that there are only relatively few things that can be warranted to utter certainty on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. And, that is a process of responsible rational assessment, open to inspection by anyone. I have put up a real world specific, instructive case, only to see it repeatedly bent into a shape more amenable to evasive games. I now see a strawman target about infallible moral systems. It is even more clear that this objector is not acting responsibly, and that on a matter of utterly grave significance. This, is where our civilisation has reached. Weep for us, for the terrible consequences that are coming as we stubbornly insist on going ever closer to the crumbling edge of a cliff. KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PST
CR, why on earth are you raising an irrelevancy but to serve as a red herring distractor led out to a strawman caricature soaked in ad hominems, to be set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere? Kindly, go to the OP and read it to see what is on the agenda, why. You may not like it on track record, but that is your problem, not the fault of the issue. People have been misled to doubt knowledge in general and moral knowledge in particular. That is a serious danger to our civilisation. It needs to be addressed. As one step, on the table is a real world case: it is self-evident that it is evil to kidnap, bind, sexually assault and murder a young child; also, if we came across the monstrous deed in progress, we are duty bound to try to rescue or at least cry out for help. Can you acknowledge this? If you deny it, kindly tell us why. If you duck or evade it, that tells us that you know what is warranted but do not wish to acknowledge it. We in effect have the still grieving father sitting in front of us, with his surviving sons. Now, tell us what you would have to say to them. KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2017
December
12
Dec
31
31
2017
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PST
JS
The one doesn’t necessarily require the other. God could just as easily have bound us to a sense of moral governance but left it up to us to figure out what moral values would fall under this moral governance.
Did God do this?tribune7
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.
