Can morals be grounded as objective knowledge (and are some moral principles self-evident)?

_{kairosfocus

December 27, 2017

Agitprop, Amorality, Atheism, Control vs Anarchy, Ethics, Lessons of History, Logic and Reason, Politics, rhetoric, Selective Hyperskepticism}

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

In a current thread, objector JS writes:

>>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:

{} –> 0
{0} –> 1
{0,1} –> 2
etc, endlessly
thence {0,1,2 . . . } –> w, the first transfinite ordinal.

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

JM, has religion failed any worse than government, education or financial and media institutions? I suggest the base problem is that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed. This will mean that no organisation, culture or civilisation will ever measure up to an ideal standard. But, we can work to foster virtue, curb vice, and build-in support for reformation. A key to this is reasoned responsible discussion on sound and well warranted moral first principles. Here, bear in mind that the life of the mind itself is inextricably entangled with moral considerations such as duties to truth, sound reasoning, prudence, fairness and justice etc. In that context a fairer view across the long haul is that a certain civilisation up until recently routinely called Christendom, hasn undergone major waves of reform that have in material part been energised by gospel ethics tied to the principle that we have a moral law of our nature that governs us in accord with sound moral principles. One key transforming point was when printing was invented, Bibles in the vernacular were widely distributed, newspapers began to emerge and ordinary people began to have enough leisure to look beyond the next day's toil, forces of reform from below were unleashed, leading to much of the emergence of modern liberty and representational, constitutional democracy specifically charged to recognise and defend inherent rights. Rights BTW being moral expectations that others have certain duties of respect due to our common human nature and the quasi-infinite worth of the individual. KF PS: Here is a critical point, when Locke set out to ground what would become modern democracy, as he cites "the judicious" Anglican Canon Richard Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity:
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
kairosfocus_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PST}

kairosfocus @ 60
You here reveal the true nihilistic horror of cultural relativism and its consensus [of the powerful enough to count] is the nearest to truth premise.
Why should you fear a consensus morality? Do you really think so little of your fellow human beings that you believe they would knowingly sanction behavior that is harmful to themselves or those they love?
Manipulate enough of the sufficiently powerful and kidnapping, binding, sexually assaulting and murdering a young child for pleasure is suddenly okay.
There may be a corrupt few who indulge in such behavior and are powerful enough to hide their crimes, at least for while. But do you think that, once it was exposed to public scrutiny, they would be allowed to get away with it? And I seriously doubt that, however powerful they might be, they could influence society as whole to suddenly think it was okay.
See why we have seen the notion that there is nothing wrong with the ongoing, million more victims per week slaughter of 800+ million of our living posterity in the womb? And, of: it’s only fringe extremists and haters who object? So, also, of oh, those who count are seeing words like Christmas and Jesus as worthy of tracking as hate speech.
I am as opposed to abortion as you are, in my case on the grounds that I believe right to life should be extended to cover the whole of an individual's existence as such, whatever the stage of development might be. But it's a legal matter. If you want to stop abortion you are going to have to change the law. You are also going to have to change social attitudes You talk about the "holocaust" of legally aborted pregnancies but nothing about the millions of back street abortions and the hundreds of thousands of women who also died as a result of such unsafe procedures. And why did that happen? Why were those women driven to such desperate measures? It was because girls and women who found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy faced being shamed and shunned, treated as "fallen women" and exiled from their families and friends - or worse - by their societies. And this was on the grounds of a bigoted, sanctimonious interpretation of faiths that mandated and condoned such appalling treatment. So, if you want to rid the world of abortion you are also going to have to rid the world of the narrow, Puritanical versions of so-called faith that drive it. Good luck with that.
And of course, we do have a widespread sense of being under binding obligation to the truth, the logically sound, the right etc, indeed it is a general but often unstated premise of verbal disagreements and disputes. Your remarks above are tantamount to, we can safely classify such as delusion, anesthetise consciences of a critical mass and proceed as we please, regardless of consequences with those who don’t count. Those we have cleverly managed to dehumanise or demonise and scapegoat.
And if we puny and fallible human beings are under a binding moral obligation to the truth and doing what is right then how much more so is your maximally great and good God? Which brings us right back to the theodical question of why and how a maximally good God does not put a stop to so much suffering when it must be well within His power but beyond ours?
Instantly, that is a species of arguing that the moral sense and voice of conscience are grand delusion. Such then pervades our life of the mind and ends in destructive absurdity. Taking down rationality with it, leading to a form of might and manipulation make right.
I neither reject rationality nor do I deny that some sort of moral code is an essential component of any stable human society. It is precisely because I believe in the human capacity for reason that I believe that morals are something we can work out for ourselves. How did your God arrive at the moral prescriptions dispensed in the Bible? Was it on a whim? Did He just toss a celestial coin? Heads rape is good, tails it's bad? I never believed that was the case and I'm sure you don't either. The only alternative is that God reasoned them out. It's just a shame that He never tells us the reasoning that led to them. Of course, if we are His creature then, amongst other things, He endowed us with a capacity for reason so we can work out morality for ourselves, can't we?
And so, over the cliff we go.
You have this obsession with the lemmings and cliff metaphor. Yes, we face any number of potential catastrophes, some of which we can do something about, some of which are far beyond our powers at this time. The evidence from history is all we can do is work with what we have. We can't rely on a maximally good God to get us out of trouble because, assuming He exists, it looks like He's not going to lift a finger to help. It's all down to us. We have no guarantees. There are forces in this Universe that could wipe us out in an instant but we are all we've got.Seversky_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PST}

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. That is why I said that it would never pass a rational, logical, evidence based examination. Or did you not read that?
You did not answer the question. Is it wrong to torture babies for fun or not? Granted, you do not like the idea, but the torturer *does* like the idea. You have not explained why your likes should be preferred over his. For that matter, you have not stated that it is wrong for men to abuse women or for slave owners to abuse slaves. You have not even conceded that slavery is wrong. Is it? If so, how do you know?
Then why did it take until the mid 20th century to come to this realization?
Not all aspects of the natural moral law are self-evident, but they are all built on natural law principles as reason is applied over time. Also, the Christian religion provided a more clear explication by enumerating the Ten Commandments, which is the specification of the natural moral law (and the Golden Rule, for that matter.)
No, the issue on the table is who decides what is on that list.
No, if *any* human person or group gets to decide which acts are moral, then there is no justice. That is the whole point. Everyone, including the most powerful, should be subject to the natural moral law, so that they will not impose their own personal preferences on others. By your standard, the most powerful people are entitled to decide on the moral code. That sad condition is called tyranny.
And, supposedly, it [the natural moral law] has always been in existence.
Yes, at least in some primitive form. Like most truths, we can understand more about them through the passage of time. However, time has nothing to say about their origins. They are as old as human nature and they are defined by what is appropriate for human nature.
Yet we still had human sacrifices, slavery and holocausts, legal spousal abuse, child labour, persecution of homosexuals, etc.
Of course. People (and societal leaders) often do things they know they know are wrong.
I can’t believe that you are serious about this. Evidence is always important. We take actions that we think are morally based. We see the consequences of this action and, on occasion, modify or change those actions.
Without a standard of objective morality, you have no way of knowing which actions are morally based and which consequences are bad. You may not like the consequences of some acts, but there are others who do like them. That is why subjective morality doesn’t work. That is also why evidence is irrelevant in deciding what the moral code should be.StephenB_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PST}

JSmith, This is just another aspect of the morality issues...People make up things and say they are moral... Is it a moral thing to do to insist on the contraception as immoral and prevent the African men from using condoms? Due to that there are villages and towns where there are only children because their parents died of AIDS. Many of those lives could have been saved if the Catholic Church changed their view of so called "morality"...J-Mac_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PST}

JM, I tend to agree. Whenever someone says that something is “the moral thing to do”, I want to know why? If they have to jump through hoops and use all sorts of rationalization to justify it, I start doubting the morality of the action.JSmith_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PST}

KF, Promoting morals and implementing them are two different things... I come from a catholic background, so I know an thing or two...Organized religions as a whole have failed... It's just words (morals) that have little or no effect on most...J-Mac_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PST}

Re JS: The life of reason is inextricably entangled with moral duties to truth, sound logic, justice etc. You cannot dismissively question core morality without undermining rationality, in an infinite regress. I add, the just above, given relevant history, inadvertently illustrates. KFkairosfocus_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PST}

T7
So if rules develop to kill people deemed dysgenic (or mandating child rape) they become moral?
If they can survive rational, logical, evidence based examination, yes. It certainly can’t be any worse than what history has shown us can happen by blindly assuming that our morality comes from some mysterious, ill defined natural moral law.JSmith_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PST}

Re JS: How one learns moral behaviour is distinct from how certain moral truths can be warranted, in some cases to self-evidence. Disagreement simply reflects that error exists. Which, recall, is a self-evident, certain truth. KFkairosfocus_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PST}

Laws are contingent on the consensus of those in power. Morality is an individual set of “rules” that we assemble over time based on our experiences. So if rules develop to kill people deemed dysgenic (or mandating child rape) they become moral?tribune7_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PST}

JS, the law of hell (while we are on earth): do what thou wilt. KFkairosfocus_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PST}

JM, that window is far too short [cf. the rise and fall of Communism] and it invites another failed approach, pragmatism. Kant has a point, that evils cannot be universalised (as evil prospers by being a parasite on the good) but that is not the whole story, and it "works" so it is good or true etc is a big fail. Many abuses have worled for centuries, because they entrenched a dominant elite. We really do need to get back to recognising our inevitably, inescapably morally governed nature as responsibly and rationally significantly free creatures. KFkairosfocus_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PST}

JM
Wisdom, including that on morals, is shown (or vindicated) to be right by its results… Can anyone predict whether the wisdom, or the guidance on morals today, will be vindicated , or shown to be right or wrong in 20 years? How about 50 years?
I agree completely. Hence my argument that moral actions involve an evidence based aspect. Sadly, unless there is historic evidence to draw from, we often have to learn by our mistakes.JSmith_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PST}

T7
Are you arguing that morality is contingent on the consensus of those in power?
No. Laws are contingent on the consensus of those in power. Morality is an individual set of “rules” that we assemble over time based on our experiences. Our “moral sense” is the overwhelming desire to follow these moral values and to have others follow them as well. The latter is problematic as everyone has a different set of moral values. Thankfully, most of us share many of these values ( don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, etc.). If there is a self evident truth, it is not the nature of the individual moral values, it is the fact that all of us have this innate moral sense (moral governance in KF speak). Under the society we currently live in, most of our commonly held moral values would survive a rational, logical, evidence based examination. However, if we lived under an authoritative communist regime, we may modify some of these values, or they may become less commonly held. For example, many of us might set aside the “not lying” value on occasion as it may seriously conflict with one of our other values.JSmith_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PST}

SB
There are only three kinds of people who do not recognize objective moral truth. Those who have become slaves to bad habits, those who have been systematically brainwashed against it, and those who have a mental problem.
Wow. That’s a nice way to win an argument. I should have tried it. But I prefer to have honest discussions.
Let’s get it on the record, yes or no. Do you know that 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.
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. That is why I said that it would never pass a rational, logical, evidence based examination. Or did you not read that?
There are many different kinds of slavery, some of which are moral in the right context.
And the context used to justify the enslavement of Africans was that they were inferior to Euoropeans and slavery was actually good for them. And that scripture allowed for it. Do you think that it could have be justified if we examined it rationally, logically and looked at the evidence?
Meanwhile, you need to know that slavery in America was ended on the basis of the natural moral law.
And it was justified on the basis of the natural moral law. I fail to see the point you are trying to make.
Then make a serious attempt to address the issue. What is your standard for right and wrong? You obviously think, for example, that men should not mistreat women. Good. I can tell you why that action is wrong. It violates the inherent dignity of the human person, which we learn from the natural moral law. Can you tell me why you think it is wrong?
Then why did it take until the mid 20th century to come to this realization? I assume that natural moral law does not change. I think that it wrong because I would not want to be physically disciplined.
At the moment, the issue on the table is not how long the list should be but rather if anything at all should be on the list.
No, the issue on the table is who decides what is on that list.
The natural moral law is inseparable from reason and logic. There is no difference.
And, supposedly, it has always been in existence. Yet we still had human sacrifices, slavery and holocausts, legal spousal abuse, child labour, persecution of homosexuals, etc.
“Evidence,” on the other hand, has nothing at all to do with it. How in the world do you think that “evidence” could settle the question of what should be included in a moral code.
I can’t believe that you are serious about this. Evidence is always important. We take actions that we think are morally based. We see the consequences of this action and, on occasion, modify or change those actions. The residential school system is an excellent example. We thought that we were doing the moral thing by removing indigenous children from their families and raising them as Christians. In hind sight, the evidence shows that we did most of them more harm than good.JSmith_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PST}

Wisdom, including that on morals, is shown (or vindicated) to be right by its results... Can anyone predict whether the wisdom, or the guidance on morals today, will be vindicated , or shown to be right or wrong in 20 years? How about 50 years? Mt 11:19 "But wisdom is shown to be right by its results."J-Mac_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PST}

I try to avoid getting involved in discussions or debates with interlocutors like JSmith. If there are no true interpersonal moral standards or obligations, how can we trust anything he says or asserts? I don’t think that we can. To have an honest discussion or debate you need some kind of interpersonal, or “transcendent,” standard of truth and honesty. He’s using a rhetorical ploy that we have seen here many times before, pseudo-humility: “I’m not certain about moral truth, therefore, no one else can be either.” Even if the first part of what he apparently believes is true, how can he consistently believe the second? (That no one else can be certain about moral truth.) If he maintains or makes an argument that that’s true he is making a universal truth claim about truth, which he is claiming with his first premise no one can do. That’s a logical contradiction. But maybe he doesn’t believe the rules of logic are universal either. Frankly, I sincerely doubt that he honestly believes his own nonsense, which means he’s being dishonest and disingenuous. That’s why I think it is a waste of time to engage people like him.john_a_designer_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PST}

Trib, unfortunately that is exactly what he is suggesting, but as a gambit. His real rhetorical game is to pretend that to question is to decide the case against anything he does not like. Where, he clearly does not like that there are first principles of right reason that are self evident, or self evident moral truths. he imagines that such a concept could fall into the hands of those who do not favour his agendas; not realising that SET's are a basis for challenging blind authoritarianism to account before facts and evident reasons. In short, as is oh so common today, he wants to dictate morals (along with those he happens to favour) and will exert selective hyperskepticism and stereotypical scapegoating against those who he does not favour; as he has already done. No great surprise, Christians head that list. KFkairosfocus_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PST}

J.S. Even as the way you tried to question that it is self-evidently evil to kidnap, bind, sexually assault and kill a young child for pleasure . . . --Yet there have been examples of societies where this was morally acceptable.-- Are you arguing that morality is contingent on the consensus of those in power?tribune7_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PST}

PS: The issue at work, c/o Plato's parable of the mutinous ship of state, reflecting on the collapse of Athenian democracy in the context of the Peloponnesian 30 years war:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
kairosfocus_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PST}

JS: You have already been answered on how self-evident truths are recognised as such (right there in the OP), and have been given key examples, which in your resort to self serving suspicion of the other, you have ignored. I could direct you to the OP but it is obvious you will refuse to look at it with any seriousness. I summarise yet again: a SET is first true, saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. Falsity cannot be a SET. Second, it is necessarily true (as opposed to contingently true), not on the say-so of some panel of manipulators not under your control, but on first principles of reason. That is, i/l/o appropriate experience and maturity commonly called understanding, we can recognise a SET on its evidence, just as advertised. Namely, once one understands what is claimed one sees that it is and must be true, on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial. Distinct identity instantly necessitates the triple first principles of right reason and two-ness thence the world of numerically anchored quantity. Just to try to object exemplifies and requires the use of distinct identity. To try to deny consciousness relies on consciousness. To deny error exists implies that error exists. When you can acknowledge such, and the implication that we are governed by duty to face and acknowledge then live by patent truth, then we can progress. If not, you simply confirm that you are acting on the premise of irrationality, which means that you must be governed as a horse or mule is (by force of bridle and bit etc backed up by operantly conditioned training and indoctrination), animals which have little or no understanding. KFkairosfocus_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PST}

SB, thanks. KFkairosfocus_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PST}

JS, the cultural relativism you are trying to advocate is a failed basis for moral grounding. Societies, as we all know, can be given over to great evils -- as the 1 million more victims per week mass slaughter of posterity in the womb currently demonstrates. At Nuremberg, a key defence offered was cultural relativism, and the answer was to bring forth the same principles I have illustrated. All you are doing is rehashing fallacies and absurdities that have long been exposed -- cultural relativism boils down to the rule of the might and manipulation of the inner power elites in some new Plato's cave world or other. In short, utter absurdity. Which has already been pointed out, just ignored. KF PS: Beyond, I have no intent to wander all over the world of ideas, debate talking points and Internet atheist anti-Bible rants. If a sound moral framework is not established, that becomes little more than an excuse to wander into a morass of stubborn, mutually reinforcing moral errors backed by long since exposed selective hyperskepticism. In short, what I warned of on your "questioning" gambit stands clearly confirmed. It is clear that you have utterly no intent of mutuality, and you have already declared yourself beyond the pale of civility by resorting to a self-confessed blanket general bigotry of suspicion towards Christians -- you cannot resort to such stubborn blanket prejudice without facing consequences of being recognised as not being a good faith participant in a serious discussion. Instead of going into such a morass, the root-issues have to be faced, and it is already obvious that you have refused to address the correction to the blunders identified and responded to in the OP. You refuse to acknowledge when your talking points have been appropriately corrected, and cling to several demonstrably self-referentially incoherent views. There is a name for that behaviour: irrationality, here by way of insisting on clinging to crooked yardsticks as standards of straightness and uprightness in the teeth of such having been exposed by plumblines. I have to put on the table the animus and hermeneutic of suspicion you have already exerted and seem to refuse to recognise for just how ugly it is. Then, you have repeatedly tried to deflect the utterly clear case on the table with little more that oh I can cite cases of people in societies that have agreed to do grave evils so I can dismiss what answers to and would reform them. Such a view is suicidal, a surrender of responsible, rational, morally governed freedom, implicitly accepting might and manipulation make right amoral nihilism in its stead. Only, you obviously imagine you or those who you imagine are sympathetic to you will hold the handle, not the blade. That is how civilisations go over the cliff in a march of folly exemplified by the failure of Athenian democracy. Meanwhile, you are dodging and dismissing the underlying obvious fact that you expect us to abide by the duties of care to truth, sound reason, fairness, justice etc while implying a self serving hyperskeptical exception for yourself. The self-referential incoherence is glaring. I simply note to you for record of onlookers present and future, that there are circumstances of the lesser of evils, there are situations where the long-term good in a situation forces compromises due to the hardness of men's hearts (as happened with the US framers and founders), there are situations where you face a culture of hereditary, genocidal clan warfare (as the Romans did with exported Canaanite culture at Carthage and particularly with the family of Hannibal). If we do not deal with moral first principles that rise above ruthless power games, we invite a march of ruinous folly. As, is happening with our civilisation and is compounded by dealing with consciences benumbed by the blood guilt of 800+ million victims of the holocaust of living posterity in the womb. The benumbed cannot think straight on morality, period. Not until they find a place of penitence. Which too often means shattering of life and even of civilisation that demonstrates undeniable failure and need to change. Frankly, with nukes in play this time around (and with for example the serious question of EMP being able to wipe out electronics in an instant leading to chaos and collapse then mass die-offs), we simply cannot afford that. It is time for a rethink and reform from the roots of our worldviews that draws back from the crumbling brink of an abyss. If, we are wise. Of which, I have my serious doubts.kairosfocus_{December 30, 2017
December
12
Dec
30
30
2017
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PST}

J Smith
Yet there have been examples of societies where this was morally acceptable. You may call them fringe, or trivial, or absurd, but they were real.
Plenty of people do things that they know are wrong, including societies. They just find ways to rationalize their bad behavior. There are only three kinds of people who do not recognize objective moral truth. Those who have become slaves to bad habits, those who have been systematically brainwashed against it, and those who have a mental problem. For everyone else, it is self evident that you should not torture babies for fun. Let's get it on the record, yes or no. Do you know that 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.
Slavery was once morally acceptable, even in scripture.
There are many different kinds of slavery, some of which are moral in the right context. Chattel slavery is always wrong; indentured servitude is not. Until you define your terms, your claim is meaningless. Meanwhile, you need to know that slavery in America was ended on the basis of the natural moral law.
I am trying to have a serious discussion on the importance, both historically and in present day, of examining our morally based actions.
Then make a serious attempt to address the issue. What is your standard for right and wrong? You obviously think, for example, that men should not mistreat women. Good. I can tell you why that action is wrong. It violates the inherent dignity of the human person, which we learn from the natural moral law. Can you tell me why you think it is wrong?
If we are going to accept some of our moral actions as being self evidently correct (true), who gets to decide on this list?
At the moment, the issue on the table is not how long the list should be but rather if anything at all should be on the list. So far you have not acknowledged the point. Is it self-evidently true that one should not torture babies for pleasure? Once you answer that question, I can take you to the next step and we can add to the list by discussing why it is wrong to steal or commit adultery.
I’m sure that you can see the danger in this. Would it not be wiser to hold all of our moral actions up to the same yardstick? Rational, logical, evidence based examination?
The natural moral law is inseparable from reason and logic. There is no difference. "Evidence," on the other hand, has nothing at all to do with it. How in the world do you think that "evidence" could settle the question of what should be included in a moral code. One is in no way related to the other. If you believe otherwise, make your case. Take me from "here is the evidence of x" to "that is why x is right or wrong."StephenB_{December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PST}

KF
Even as the way you tried to question that it is self-evidently evil to kidnap, bind, sexually assault and kill a young child for pleasure . . .
Yet there have been examples of societies where this was morally acceptable. You may call them fringe, or trivial, or absurd, but they were real. Slavery was once morally acceptable, even in scripture. Is this an absurd example? The jailing of homosexuals was once considered morally acceptable. Is this an absurd example? It was once morally acceptable to physically discipline a man’s wife. Is this an absurd example? I am trying to have a serious discussion on the importance, both historically and in present day, of examining our morally based actions. We know that it has been instrumental in ending practices that most people today would consider to be morally unacceptable. Why would you think that we have everything correct now? If we are going to accept some of our moral actions as being self evidently correct (true), who gets to decide on this list? You? Me? Hitler? Some council? I’m sure that you can see the danger in this. Would it not be wiser to hold all of our moral actions up to the same yardstick? Rational, logical, evidence based examination? The ‘kidnapping, binding, sexually assaulting and killing of a young child for pleasure’ would never pass this examination. Maybe if this approach was taken by societies that conducted child sacrifices, the practice may have ended long before it did. I honestly don’t understand why you are so adamantly opposed to this concept. Is it possible that you are not sure that all of your morally held beliefs would pass a rational, logical, evidence based examination? I will be honest and admit that I am not sure if all of mine will.JSmith_{December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PST}

JS, again, what people may or may not imagine -- clinging to absurdity -- is beside the point. As for questioning, anyone may do so, that is utterly trivial. Such has utterly nothing to do with whether something is actually warranted. Even as the way you tried to question that it is self-evidently evil to kidnap, bind, sexually assault and kill a young child for pleasure . . . and see how your rewording set up ever so many side tracks and evasions? There is a reason why I have stuck to a very concrete real case, as it does not leave room for the usual evasive rhetorical games but is replete with consequences. Where, it is quite clear from the evasive behaviour of many over years, that directly denying that such a demonic act is evil, is at once so absurd that they are uncomfortable to do so -- as in De Sade's nature has made us the stronger so we can do as we please with the weaker for our pleasure is plain demonic insanity. As for selective hyperskepticism games, you actually exemplified the first moves of several just now. Anyway, I am here speaking in brief for record, you have already established what you have been up to. And, the substantial answer has long since been given. KF PS: Again, I clip some longstanding remarks:
Compare a fish, that we lure to bite on a hook, then land, kill and eat for lunch without compunction. And even for those who object, they will do so by extension of the protective sense we have about say the young child -- not the other way around. But, unless there is a material difference between a young child and a fish, that sense of wrong is frankly delusional, it is just a disguised preference, one that we are simply willing to back up with force. So, already, once we let radical relativism and subjectivism loose, we are looking at the absurdity and chaos of the nihilist abyss, might (and manipulation) makes for 'right.' Oops. At the pivot of the skeptical objections to objective moral truth, notwithstanding persistent reduction to absurdity, is the pose that since we may err and since famously there are disagreements on morality, we can reduce moral feelings to subjective perceptions tastes and preferences, dismissing any and all claims of objectivity much less self evidence. So, the objector triumphantly announces: there is an unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap, game over. Not so fast, as there is no better reason to imagine that we live in a moral Plato’s Cave world, than that we live in a physical or intellectual Plato’s Cave world . . . . Now, the skeptical question is, do we live in such a delusional world (maybe in another form such as the brains in vats or the Matrix's pods . . . ), and can we reliably tell the difference? The best answer to such is, that such a scenario implies general delusion and the general un-trustworthiness of our senses and reasoning powers. So, it undercuts itself in a turtles all the way down chain of possible delusions -- an infinite regress of Plato's cave delusions. Common good sense then tells us that the skeptic has caught himself up in his own web, his argument is self referentially incoherent.
kairosfocus_{December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PST}

TWSYF
I have come to expect such attitude and behavior from a/mats. Just par for the course. And these deluded fools actually believe themselves to be morally superior to the rest of us. What a joke that is.
Did you have anything substantive to say about my claim that all moral actions are open to questioning, and that this is healthy for society? Or do you just take pleasure in drive by trolling?JSmith_{December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PST}

KF
I have spoken to the primary issue long since (fallible thinkers like us can and do know some things to utter certainty including that we are conscious, that error exists, that the first principles of right reason are true and that certain moral claims — including one actually given — are self evidently true).
If I remember correctly, the example you used was that the torture and killing of children was self evidently wrong (immoral). Although anyone reading this would hopefully agree, there are plenty of historic examples where it was considered morally acceptable by many (eg, Central and South American societies, Nazis). Even a country such as the US refuses to sign the treaty banning land mines, with the full knowledge that a significant percentage of those killed and maimed by them are children.
I answered it specifically (it is trivially the case that one may question a moral or any other view)...
It is not that trivial considering the ease with which human societies justify changes/reversals in moral actions.
...and corrected the trend it feeds (that if one hyperskeptically challenges one may set an arbitrarily high standard to make it seem that you are justified in dismissal).
Nonsense. If a moral action can repeatedly survive rational and logical examination, it just becomes more reinforced in society. And, on the flip side, these types of examination have shone the light on actions that we once considered to be morally acceptable that we now consider not to be morally acceptable. Things like slavery, child labour, debtors prison, capital punishment, jailing homosexuals and denying marriage for interracial couples, interfaith couples and same sex couples.
You are clearly not a good faith participant, game over.
It must be nice to be able to declare victory by claiming that the other person is participating in bad faith.JSmith_{December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PST}

F/N: The White House, USA is acting: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/ KFkairosfocus_{December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PST}

KF @80
KF: … it seems that our critics cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the significance of self-evident first principles which are such that to reject them lands one in patent absurdity.
Our critics pretend that knowledge can be based on nothing, by smuggling in certainty from nowhere.
KF: They have also failed to see how double-edged self-referential arguments are.
Thank you for noticing. It’s quite infuriating. CR honestly believes that Deutsch making a statement like:
Paradoxes seem to appear when one considers the implications of one’s own fallibility: A fallibilist cannot claim to be infallible even about fallibilism itself. And so, one is forced to doubt that fallibilism is universally true. Which is the same as wondering whether one might be somehow infallible—at least about some things. For instance, can it be true that absolutely anything that you think is true, no matter how certain you are, might be false?
… solves a colossal problem. There is so much wrong with Deutsch’s statement (see #72), that I do not know where to begin.Origenes_{December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply