Some Things are Really Simple

_{Barry Arrington

August 27, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

Here is an example:

Barry to Popperian:

Anyone who cannot unambiguously condemn the practice of chopping little boys and girls up and selling the pieces like so much meat shares in the evil of those who do so.

Popperian responds:

Note how Barry is making my point for me. I wrote:

From time to time, old words become obsolete. For an non-essentialist this is not a problem. This is because non-essentialists view words as a tool, not a Thing with a capital T. If any word ceases to function as a tool, a non-essentialists will quickly let it go and find some other new tool to solve problems with. On the other hand, an essentialist will not do this. Why not? Because, for the essentialist, all words correspond with Things with a capital T. And Things do not just disappear. Because of this view, an essentialist is significantly less likely to change their opinion of anything, if at all.

However, an essentialist is sure that some Thing actually corresponds with his words. As such, he will try to figure out why a non-essentialist won’t admit there really is such a Thing as the Thing he is talking about. The essentialist might merely think the non-essentialist is merely ignorant, or that their intellect is on the fritz. Or he might even decide you are down right evil. But the essentialist certainly won’t agree the Thing he refers to with his word can be so quickly dismissed.

(emphasis in original)

Let’s examine this. It is 1943 and I say:

Anyone who cannot unambiguously condemn the practice of cooking Jews in ovens like so much meat shares in the evil of those who do so.

What would you think of someone who gave Popperian’s response? You would think they agree with the goals of the Holocaust and therefore share in the guilt of that unspeakable evil. And you would be right.

So yes, Popperian, I do say you are down right evil.

Popperian thinks he is oh-so-sophisticated. “Words are so ambiguous; I can’t possibly condemn the killers.” Meanwhile the slaughter of innocents continues unabated.

Damn your pseudo-sophisticated sophistry Popperian. It is counterproductive to dignify it by getting into the weeds and countering your logical fallacies point by point. Instead, like Dr. Johnson and his famous rock kicking demonstration, I refute your moral theorizing thusly:

Does your moral theory compel you unambiguously to condemn the practice of chopping little boys and girls up and selling the pieces like so much meat?

No? Then your moral theory is as worthless as a fresh steaming pile of dog feces.

Comments

I think for me the take-away from all of this boils down to the following: Materialist: That's not fair/moral/ethical. Me: In your world, fairness/morals/ethics is some murky subjective notion based on molecules in a certain configuration. Fairness is an illusion, and if you and I disagree, guess whose will I am going follow? To whom or what will you appeal if I decide I'm hungry for your liver? Maybe the State or someone else with big guns will come to your aid, maybe it won't, but let's not hear any more of this business about fairness and morality. I'm hungry for your liver with fava beans. Period. My will be done Now, maybe Reality is really is as the materialists believe. Can my deepest intuition and profound spiritual experiences really be so utterly deceived? I sure as hell hope not. For if I'm that utterly deceived, than I have no reason to believe in anything. Arguing with these moral nihilists is like arguing with congenitally blind men who pound the table and insist that color doesn't exist. You're never going to convince them until something or someone grants them eyes to see. They can't help it. They were born without eyes.mike1962_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand.
Probably because they, like a lot of people, don’t think that “natural moral law” is a meaningful standard in court.
You may be certain that I will not discuss the subtleties of the natural moral law with someone who rejects simple evidence in a futile attempt to avoid refutation. That would be like discussing integral calculus with someone who thinks 2 +2 does not equal 4. SB: I don’t believe you.
OK. I’m sorry about that. But I don’t think there’s really any way to misunderstand or disagree with StephenB without being a liar or an insane person, so I don’t know what I can do about it. I really don’t get the point you were trying to make.
It has nothing to do with my attitude about those who disagree with me (and old and desperate materialist trick) and everything to do with your record of making false statements.
You said that the “right to choose” is not a “moral issue”, which seems so wildly off base from the entire conversation that surely it deserves some kind of explanation.
This is a good example of one more of your many false statements. As I made clear, I do believe it is a moral issue. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, does not treat it as a moral issue. For them, only "persons," as they define it, have a right to live.
You complain that I don’t acknowledge that we’re discussing what PP believes, but I’m pretty sure PP would acknowledge that the right to choose is a moral issue
You are “pretty sure?” Is that your argument?
So given that the morality seems central to the question to everyone involved, from PP to me and you and Barry, no, I really don’t understand what you mean when you say the legal right to choose isn’t a moral issue.
Marvelous. The lies just keep coming. Barry and I both know that abortion is a moral issue. No one believes you when you go into your “I don’t understand why you think it isn’t a moral issue” routine or your “I am doubtful about the meaning of the facts” gambit, or your “I am skeptical that PP is really that way” tactic. A quote from Planned Parenthood in the context of rationalizing a partial-birth abortion: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
In the context of defending a specific procedure. I looked up the quote. I think when she says “any decision,” that she means “any decision made during this procedure,” as in the decision to terminate or save the fetus. I don’t think she meant “any decision about any procedure,” since in context she wasn’t talking about all procedures.
So, you add delusion to dishonesty. Remarkable. She means any decision that involves the continuing or the ending of a pregnancy. There is no question about it. Further, it is consistent with Planned Parenthood’s stated philosophy, about which you obviously know nothing—unless, of course, you do know and are knowingly making more false statements.
I don’t think you can extend her statement from that to prove either that she personally, or PP, believes the right should be totally unbounded. My skepticism is a drop of water in the blazing sun of your self-certainty, yet it exists.
Your alleged skepticism is a mere rhetorical dodge in the teeth of facts in evidence. Why an attorney would so degrade himself in a futile attempt to escape refutation is a mystery. SB: Translation: I have no evidence.
That’s true. I have no evidence of what PP’s position is.
Congratulations. You really can make a truthful statement when you want to. Keep it up.
Nor have I seen any from you, but for one comment from one person representing one PP chapter, from which you plucked a few words to be grandly extended and taken as a policy statement for the entire organization. In other words, neither of us has any evidence. I’m comfortable being skeptical of the grand, furious conclusions you’ve drawn.
It was merely one quote among many that I could have provided. Indeed, you responded to Barry’s evidence about PP’s legal battles over a woman’s absolute right in the same way that you responded to my quote. Obviously, you are unaware of the many other legal battles and the many other quotes. As a tactical maneuver, you simply dismiss the evidence, however compelling, and continue on with your sophistry. Every knowledgeable person knows that Planned Parenthood and NARAL hold that there should be no exceptions: For them, it is always a woman’s right to choose whether or not to continue or end her pregnancy. Planned Parenthood is the most evil organization on the face of the earth. That is why abortionists from this same organization will extract the brain from a live baby and giggle while they are selling it. That you staunchly support them even to the point of degrading yourself is instructive.StephenB_{August 31, 2015
August
08
Aug
31
31
2015
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

GUN, On wide observation, generally when one says that someone is using or playing the X-card, that carries with it an aura of such being a questionable but strong move. Particularly when what plausibly seem to be scare quotes -- another suggestion of something being dubious at best (or at minimum distancing oneself) -- are also used. That is why I responded as above. KFkairosfocus_{August 31, 2015
August
08
Aug
31
31
2015
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

KF,
Self-evidence is not a rhetorical trick.
And I wasn't using it as such. Anything can be used as a rhetorical trick though.goodusername_{August 31, 2015
August
08
Aug
31
31
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

GUN, 115:
I may have to pull the “self-evident” card.
Self-evidence is not a rhetorical trick. Start with, 2 + 3 = 5. Once we are in a position to understand what is being claimed, we see it is true and that it must be so on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. At a slightly more difficult level, try, error exists. Cal this E. Try to deny it, ~ E. Put them together E and ~E, which as a contradiction is necessarily false. To try to deny E necessarily, directly entails that error exists. And more. More directly to what you would dodge and duck, it is self-evidently wrong and evil to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young child who had been walking home from school. Try to deny that and make sense. Cannot be done. Hence the distractions. Likewise, the unborn child in the womb half the time is not even the same sex as the mother. Even if female, it is genetically distinct, e.g. she may be of a different race or have a different blood type. And, as we all know we came from such unborn children, we celebrate our birthdays. The unborn child is human, is of a distinct identity from either parent and the point where that new human life begins is when sperm meets and enters ovum, triggering the continuous development process known as pregnancy. Which (generally speaking) points out the true moment of the right/responsibility to choose: the decision to keep the knees together or apart, in simple terms. Once the knees open up under well known circumstances a process leading to potential conception is set in motion. Imposing death on the innocent under such circumstances, largely for reasons of convenience [the notorious hard cases being a tiny percentage and shrinking in the face of C21 medicine], is dubious. The absurdities and corruptions of thought, morality, medicine, nursing, law, government, media, education, society and culture that flow from such moral absurdities, are patent. Our civilisation's bloodguilt for hundreds of millions of cases cries out to heaven against us. KFkairosfocus_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Barry,
Do you realize what you just said? I am not arguing FOR being a psychopath in those posts.
Yes, I realize that you believe that what you're saying only applies to materialists should do if they are being logically consistent.
I am merely taking materialist logic to its ultimate conclusion. The answer, as you see here, is to reject the logic of materialism, because it is self-evidently false.
What is the "logic of materialism"? How, pray tell, does that logic dictate that a clear-eyed materialist would suppress empathy and perhaps all desires? It sounds like you're saying that materialists logically ought to become masochists or ascetics or something. I need help making the leap from "I'm a materialist" to "I therefore ought to forgo all of my desires and anything that which makes me happy".
The goal is to be good.
Why is that the goal?
Examine the life of any good person. You will see that they did not strive for happiness and often were among the most miserable people of all.
I don't believe that there's usually a conflict between being a good person and the pursuit of happiness - they usually coincide, like being a good parent. I think the most miserable people I know were people who actually did strive for happiness - but were mistaken in what it is that would make them happy - and so did things they regret because they thought that it did conflict with being a good person. And even Christians that are miserable in this life while doing good in this world (or because of it), they are doing so in the hope or belief of having happiness in the next.
Anyone who says “happiness” is the ultimate goal has been thoroughly conditioned by and assimilated into the 21st century Western zeitgeist.
It's a tad older than the 21st century. There's a reason that the right to "pursuit of happiness" is listed as a "self-evident" truth.
GUN, you can escape if you try hard enough. I will not lie to you and tell you it is easy. But resistance is NOT futile.
Escape what? The desire or pursuit of happiness? Why would anyone (Christian or materialist) do that?goodusername_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand at 123 continues with his version of insane denial. In the partial birth abortion cases Planned Parenthood insisted a woman should still have the right to have her baby murdered even during the process of birth when 9/10 of its body was out of the womb. Inexplicably LH continues to insist that PP is not absolutist with respect to the "right" to abortion. LH, you are not fooling anyone, least of all yourself. Your insane denial has been exposed. You are a liar. What's more, everyone knows you are a liar. It is a mystery why you persist. That is quite enough. Stop it.Barry Arrington_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

I have given Popperian multiple opportunities to declare that killing little boys and girls and cutting them into pieces and selling the pieces is evil. He refuses to do so. Instead we get hundreds of more words that amount to get "It is oh so sophisticated and nuance-y and subtle. I just can't say whether cutting little boys and girls up is bad." Like I said at the end of the OP, Popperian's words are the moral equivalent of a fresh steaming pile of dog feces. There is no sense in moving forward. Popperian has descended into the insane denial I discuss here. Madness. Sheer evil madness. Conversation over.Barry Arrington_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

You know very well that we are discussing the “right to choose” as it is understood by Planned Parenthood, which is an appeal to a constitutional right–a solely legal construct. Now I definitely don’t understand you. Are you saying that PP believes that the right to choose, as a purely legal construct, should be interpreted as wholly unbounded? Or rather that PP believes, as a moral matter, should be wholly unbounded? I think both are wrong, but they’re different points, and you seem upset that I misunderstood which one you intended. I thought the latter, but apparently not? That fact that the Constitution is based on the natural moral law is a fact that bothers them not in the least. Probably because they, like a lot of people, don’t think that “natural moral law” is a meaningful standard in court. Because like a lot of objectivist standards, it’s incommunicable. Law requires drawing hard lines and distinguishing in a careful way between “permissible” and “impermissible.” “Natural moral law,” being the sort of thing that people have to argue and debate even though it’s supposedly objective and obvious to all, makes a very poor standard for drawing fine lines. Which is one reason why we have a written constitution instead of a universal appeal to “natural moral law” – objectivism failed us there, so we turned to the sort of thing subjectivists would use, consent. Consequently, when PP or anyone else wants to figure out what the law of the land is, they turn to the written constitution rather than “natural moral law.” I don’t believe you. OK. I’m sorry about that. But I don’t think there’s really any way to misunderstand or disagree with StephenB without being a liar or an insane person, so I don’t know what I can do about it. I really don’t get the point you were trying to make. You said that the “right to choose” is not a “moral issue”, which seems so wildly off base from the entire conversation that surely it deserves some kind of explanation. You complain that I don’t acknowledge that we’re discussing what PP believes, but I’m pretty sure PP would acknowledge that the right to choose is a moral issue. It can be a legal issue too, but the morality precedes the legalism for most people. That is to say, most people who are pro-choice believe that it is morally right for women to have the autonomy to choose abortion (subject to limits, those limits varying depending on who you ask). So given that the morality seems central to the question to everyone involved, from PP to me and you and Barry, no, I really don’t understand what you mean when you say the legal right to choose isn’t a moral issue. A quote from Planned Parenthood in the context of rationalizing a partial-birth abortion: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.” In the context of defending a specific procedure. I looked up the quote. I think when she says "any decision," that she means "any decision made during this procedure," as in the decision to terminate or save the fetus. I don't think she meant "any decision about any procedure," since in context she wasn't talking about all procedures. I don’t think you can extend her statement from that to prove either that she personally, or PP, believes the right should be totally unbounded. My skepticism is a drop of water in the blazing sun of your self-certainty, yet it exists. Translation: I have no evidence. That’s true. I have no evidence of what PP’s position is. Nor have I seen any from you, but for one comment from one person representing one PP chapter, from which you plucked a few words to be grandly extended and taken as a policy statement for the entire organization. In other words, neither of us has any evidence. I’m comfortable being skeptical of the grand, furious conclusions you’ve drawn.Learned Hand_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Mike, “We have a hard time understanding” is really another way of saying, “my morality is better than yours.” It really isn’t. I’m sorry you thought so. Perhaps it’s better we not continue.Learned Hand_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Some things are simple, and other things are pompous and unintelligible. Some apropos commentary here from back in 1898 but could have been written today with a few modifications.
Surely, … we can arrive at the conclusion that Kant's philosophy is as obscure and uncertain as it is pretentious. Is it possible that this is the secret of its influence? It has ever been the way that the mysterious and the incomprehensible seem greater than truth which is comprehended, and thus, as it were, reduced to the dimensions of the mind which makes it its own. Moreover, besides the sense of liberty and expansion, which the mysterious and unaccountable carry with them, the study involves no real labour : it is easier to affirm, or dream all day long, than to solve one problem in Euclid. " The lowest stage of degradation," says Schopenhauer, "was reached by Hegel, who to stifle the freedom of thought won by Kant, turned Philosophy, the daughter of Reason ... into an instrument of obscurantism, … but in order to hide the disgrace, and at the same time stupefy men's brains to the utmost, drew over her a veil of the emptiest verbiage and the most senseless hodge-podge ever heard out of Bedlam."
I got a good laugh there. "Pretentious, hodge-podge, empty verbiage". Also: "the mysterious and the incomprehensible seem greater than truth which is comprehended".
"Who has ever yet uttered one intelligible word about Hegel? Not one of his countrymen -not any foreigner seldom even himself;" and certainly I think, that any one who reads a few pages of the philosopher, or his commentators will share in the perplexity of Professor Ferrier. So it was ninety years ago with Sydney Smith in the presence of " Professor Kant and his twelve categories; his distinctions between empirical, rational and transcendental philosophy ; his absolute unity, absolute totality, and absolute causation; his four reflective conceptions, his objective noumenal reality, his subjective elements, and his pure cognition ". Sydney Smith had singular powers of perception, but he was unable to penetrate Kant's "realm of shadows " ; the title which Hegel, with amusing candour, gives to his own system. "
:-)
It is onlv children and barbarians who take people at their own valuation : a privilege freelv granted to Kant, and his many imitators. When a philosopher has obtained this semi-religious position, his disciples expect him to be treated with a kind of veneration, and any failure in this arouses indignation, and that retaliation which puts an end to discussion. In this country at present this is one of our greatest difficulties. Indeed, enthusiasts for the New Philosophy go farther, and are indignantly contemptuous, when we timidly say we do not understand masters, who boldly assert that they are new in every sense of the word, and that their mission is to lead the reason of mankind by paths which were never before imagined. Surely there is nothing offensive in saying that, we are nervous when asked to give up our veteran pilots for others who have only made voyages on the map.

New Philosophy must be a fatal objection. Schopenhauer s view that " Philosophy, the daughter of Reason," is merely the " future mother of Truth," will only satisfy those who hold that the pursuit, not the possession of Truth, is the end of life; an idea which is the animating principle of modern unbelief, and is boldly affirmed by some of its leaders. Herein lies one secret of its influence and its fascinations. It is important, however, to reflect that this characteristic of our times is only a new fashion of an old folly. St. Bernard tells of those whose glory it was to "doubt everything, and know nothing," and Lord Bacon, "Certainly there be that delight in giddiness, and count it a bondage to fix a belief, affecting free-will in thinking as well as in actiuo- " Again it is one of the strange perversities of the mind that it prides itself on asking questions to which it does not expect an answer. It was said of old that " one fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer : for he does not know that his questionings are an evidence of his ignorance of the Boundaries of knowledge, and of those t reason itself: "
Their glory to doubt everything and know nothing. Asking questions to which it does not expect an answer. The pursuit not the possession of truth is their end in life.
The worship of " mistiness as mother of wisdom" is no novelty; Edmund Burke speaks of "certain compositions, admired by credulous ignorance, for no other reason than because they were not understood, the generality being content to admire because it is the fashion to admire. If the work under these circumstances be pompous and unmeaning, its success is sure, as its pomp dazzles and its vacancy puzzles, both which are admirable ingredients to procure respect." Excerpts from The Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Pascal William Bullen Morris
Compositions admired for no other reason than because they were not understood. :-) Pompous and unmeaning - it's pomp dazzles and its vacancy puzzles. :-)Silver Asiatic_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Dear readers, I invite you to read the 544-word logorrhea Popperian spews into the combox at 116. Apparently he is unable to heed the title of this post.
The funny thing is, it you who is arguing for something far more complicated than I am. I'm suggesting that all knowledge - including knowledge in the moral sphere and regardless if in brains, books, or even the genomes of organisms - grows via some form of conjecture and criticism. IOW, a theory for the universal growth of knowledge. On the other hand, AFAIK, no such theory has been pressed here. At best, it's simple because there is no theory beyond, "that's just what some designer must have wanted." Even then, you're still left with different spheres, such as human knowledge, moral "principles" and God's... well... I still can't get a clear answer because both ID and theism has no explanation for the knowledge found in organisms. I can't even get anyone to indicate if the knowledge in organisms, which are the origin of that organisms features, started out in once place, in God, then was copied to another place, in the cells of organism. It's like putting teeth. Then again, the details of how God actually does anything must remain unexplainable. So, it would come as no surprise that your theory lacks an explanation. Otherwise, this would yet another case where God just gets pushed back further and further. IOW, if your theory is simple because its explanation for knowledge is absent, irrational or supernatural, and therefore inexplicable, that's not a feature. Barry:
Does your moral theory compel you unambiguously to condemn the practice of chopping little boys and girls up and selling the pieces like so much meat? [If no, then] your moral theory is as worthless as a fresh steaming pile of dog feces.
First, "unambiguous" means, not being open to more than one interpretation. However, I've been pointing out problem with just that assumption. So, let me fix that for you.
Does your moral theory compel you - though the infallible identification and interpretation of an infallible source of moral principles - the practice of chopping little boys and girls up and selling the pieces like so much meat? [If no, then] your your moral theory is as worthless as a fresh steaming pile of dog feces.
One such illustration...
However, the very same arguments one could use to “justify” God demanding the death women and their unborn children by the sword could be used to “justify” the actions of abortionists. For example, if a women is evil enough to want their child to die, then one could argue that their child’s death would be God’s punishment for her evil. And being raised in such a family, such a child would have just been evil as well. IOW, it’s unclear how you could know that God isn’t just using abortionists as a “surgeon” to “cut out” evil that exceeded some limit that we cannot comprehend.
Are you saying we can unambiguously rule this out? If so how? Are the only "legitimate" cases in which God interacts with human beings, such as revealing moral commands, those documented in ancient holy texts? But that would be like saying the only "legitimate" cases in which God saves a person in an aircraft accident or heals someone who is ill are those documented in ancient holy texts. Somehow I don't think you'd agree with that.Popperian_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Popperian @ 116: Dear readers, I invite you to read the 544-word logorrhea Popperian spews into the combox at 116. Apparently he is unable to heed the title of this post. Pop, I will give you another chance and repeat the next to last line of the OP and await your response. No need to spew several hundred more words into the combox. A simple "Yes" or "No" will do.
Does your moral theory compel you unambiguously to condemn the practice of chopping little boys and girls up and selling the pieces like so much meat?
And if the answer is "no", I repeat the last line:
Then your moral theory is as worthless as a fresh steaming pile of dog feces.
I understand you are very prideful and want to demonstrate your superior intellect. But it really is just that simple. Any child can understand it. Can you?Barry Arrington_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Popperian
Oh wait, no one has successfully shown that my arguments are actually fallacious.
Correction, you have stubbornly resisted correction. Not the same thing Pop, not the same thing.Barry Arrington_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

GUN:
Yes, it’s hard to come up with a “logical” reason “why not?”- I may have to pull the “self-evident” card.
Do you realize what you just said? I am not arguing FOR being a psychopath in those posts. I am merely taking materialist logic to its ultimate conclusion. The answer, as you see here, is to reject the logic of materialism, because it is self-evidently false. Good for you GUN. You went right up to the edge of truth there.
Even for the Christian, the answer, ultimately, to “Why have a relationship with God and strive to be moral?” Is because it ultimately leads to happiness. Just more “weak-kneed sentimentality”, right? If being happy isn’t the goal, than what is?
And then you backed away from the edge. I will tell you the answer to that question. The goal is to be good. And if one must choose between being good and being happy, then one must sacrifice happiness for the sake of goodness. Examine the life of any good person. You will see that they did not strive for happiness and often were among the most miserable people of all. Anyone who says "happiness" is the ultimate goal has been thoroughly conditioned by and assimilated into the 21st century Western zeitgeist. GUN, you can escape if you try hard enough. I will not lie to you and tell you it is easy. But resistance is NOT futile.Barry Arrington_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Why yes, we do hold you in contempt LH, because you support the practice of killing little boys and girls, chopping them into little pieces, and then selling the pieces like meat.
"You support" is completely void of any particular problem to solve. It would also include "supporting", for not other reason than entertainment on Saturday night, the idea of finding a random child, chopping it into small peaces, then selling their flesh at a yard sale on Sunday morning because, you know, infant flesh collection is much more popular than collecting those little glass figurines these days. What you're saying is that, unless murder is defined in precisely such as way that you think it ought to be, using a philosophical means that you thing ought to be used, murder means nothing and anything goes. After all, if we could make progress on solutions to moral problems, then morality did not really exist in the first place? This is immoral, as presenting such a dilemma justifies the very things you claim to denounce. You're essentially claiming that, unless we somehow got it right the first time, then anything goes. But it's unclear why you would expect us to get it right in the first place. Underlying this issue is a claim or specific theory about about knowledge, such as it comes from authoritative sources, which no one seems want to acknowledge or address. Not to mention that you forgot to add an important qualifier to the end of that sentence.
Why yes, we do hold you in contempt LH, because you support the practice of killing little boys and girls, chopping them into little pieces, and then selling the pieces like meat, unless God demanded you to.
Apparently, in that case, you would not hold LH in contempt. However, the very same arguments one could use to "justify" God of demanding the death women and their unborn children by the sword could be used to "justify" the actions of abortionists. For example, if a women is evil enough to want their child to die, then one could argue that their child's death would be God's punishment for her evil. And being raised in such a family, such a child would have just been evil as well. IOW, it's unclear how you could know that God isn't just using abortionists as a "surgeon" to "cut out" evil that exceeded some limit that we cannot comprehend. Again, t's still unclear how, when faced with a moral problem, in practice, you have any other recourse then to conjectures solutions and criticize them. That is, you would need a way to infallibly identify an infallible source, then interpret it infallibly to "morally" denounce the above. In absence of an explanation of how this is possible, you must conjecture ideas that God is like X, Y or Z, take those ideas on-board seriously, as if they were true in reality, then discard those ideas that not survive criticism. To exclude the above scenario, that's what you would have done Even if there is some objective moral principles, it's unclear how you are in any better position than anyone else. Let me guess: we must be able to infallibly identify an infallible source and interpret it infallibility, or anything goes?Popperian_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Barry,
Do you not understand that much of military training is doing just that, i.e., conditioning the trainees to suppress their empathy for the people they will be expected to kill.
Yes, that's perhaps a good example. But I would say it's more an exception that proves the rule. Yes, many of them do need to suppress their empathy. And they pay a heavy price for that. it's quite a shame that such anyone needs to do such a thing. It's part of the sacrifice they make that we should all both respect - and lament.
Yes indeed GUN, why not. That is the point. The answer as made clear in those two posts is: “There is no logical reason whatsoever.”
Well, it's a bit like answering the question, "Why not repeatedly poke my eyes with a fork and stick my feet on hot lava? Why not?" Yes, it's hard to come up with a "logical" reason "why not?"- I may have to pull the "self-evident" card. I can only say that I can't imagine you being happy doing so. I suppose the fellow with the forks in his eyes and feet in lava would call me a weak-kneed sentimentalist. So my answer to "Why not view ALL desires as 'weak-kneed sentimentality'?" is that I care about what makes me happy. Why should I care about things that make me happy? Uh, because one does - by definition. It's a tautology. Even for the Christian, the answer, ultimately, to "Why have a relationship with God and strive to be moral?" Is because it ultimately leads to happiness. Just more "weak-kneed sentimentality", right? If being happy isn't the goal, than what is?goodusername_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

UDEditors:
UDEditors: No, Popperian, you are evil because you employ sophistry in the service of evil.
Phew.. I'm glad you showed me the error of my ways. Oh wait, no one has successfully shown that my arguments are actually fallacious. Specially, it's unclear how, Barry, or anyone else for that matter, has any other recourse but to conjecture solutions to moral problems an criticize them.Popperian_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Imagined response of GUN: 'My gut feeling is...Axel_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

GUN:
Empathy is a central part of who we are (unless one’s a pyschopath) – and plays a central role in what we desire and what makes us happy. Barry believes that a “clear-eyed” materialist would push his empathy aside. Yeah, that makes sense. Why not view ALL desires as “weak-kneed sentimentality”?
Yes indeed GUN, why not. That is the point. The answer as made clear in those two posts is: "There is no logical reason whatsoever." The logic compels the conclusion inexorably GUN. You kick against the goads but have nothing to say other than "I don't FEEL like that conclusion is right." Well, as my professor in law school kept saying, "We are not interested in the condition of your viscera. We want to know about the soundness of your logic." Barry Arrington_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

GUN
I can’t imagine anyone who isn’t an idiot – and probably also insane – who would actually try such a thing.
And I can't imagine why your inability to imagine everyday common occurrences should count as an argument. Do you not understand that much of military training is doing just that, i.e., conditioning the trainees to suppress their empathy for the people they will be expected to kill.Barry Arrington_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

SB: You stated that the “right to choose” is a moral issue. In fact, it is a legal construct. The proper response on your part would be, “I stand corrected.” Learned Hand
The “right to choose” is not a moral issue?
You know very well that we are discussing the "right to choose" as it is understood by Planned Parenthood, which is an appeal to a constitutional right--a solely legal construct. That fact that the Constitution is based on the natural moral law is a fact that bothers them not in the least.
I don’t have any idea what you mean by that.
I don't believe you.
Or why you think “legal construct” and “moral issue” are mutually exclusive.
Again, you know very well that we are discussing what Planned Parenthood believes, not what I believe. You also know that I personally believe that the right to choose is very much a moral issue, which is why I decry Planned Parenthood;'s formulaton. So, your disengenuity is duly noted.
(I suppose you could mean that the strict legal question of whether the Constitution protects such a right is not a moral issue, but even that doesn’t read like a coherent statement to me.)
Notice, that after pretending not to know what I mean, LH finally confesses that he does know what I mean-- Unbelievable. A quote from Planned Parenthood in the context of rationalizing a partial-birth abortion: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
That’s not actually what she said. She said the decision should also be up to the family and physician.
Bad Logic. The "right to choose" is, according to PP, solely hers. The physician has no such alleged right to choose. Presumably, he helps her decide, but he doesn’t share in the so-called” right.”
Which is an odd thing to say if she’s talking about the overall right to abortion—I’m pretty sure PP doesn’t think that a woman’s family has the right to make the decision for her. So I’m a little dubious that she’s making a blanket statement about PP’s position on the right to choose.
I don't believe that you are dubious. The facts are compelling.
Yes, she says “any decision” – but does she, in context, mean “any decision that a woman makes about abortion, period”?
Yes, that is exactly what she means and you know it. SB: Do you have any evidence to support your position, or are you asking me to accept your doubts as evidence?
My position is that I doubt that PP takes the position that the right to abortion should be totally unlimited.
Translation: I have no evidence.
I don’t know how to provide evidence for that, or why I should.
Translation: I have no evidence to counter your evidence, which I conveniently discounted. Further, I expect you to accept my doubts, however sincere or insincere they may be, over your evidence. So sad. Really.
Let’s just say it’s self-evident! If you doubt my doubts, you must be a liar or something. (No, not really.)
Translation: I don't know the difference between a self-evident principle and a demonstrable fact. SB:That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. You think that the ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb is contingent on what state law says about it?
No. You misunderstood me. I think that in those states that bar pre-viability abortions, PP isn’t performing pre-viability abortions.
OK, I accept that clarification and retract my response. Whenever, I read something that makes sense, I respond.
Y’all work hard to find reasons to exercise your contempt for others.
Yes, LH, we know how this works: Pro-lifers are mean people because they express verbal outrage over perverts who kill babies and sell their body parts, but abortionists are loving people because they smile, giggle, and radiate with kindness as they remove the brain from a baby with a beating heart and say, "that's kinda cool."StephenB_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand: We have a hard time understanding the position that you’d love to go do some murders. I have a hard time understanding how people can kill infants and chop them up while their heart is still beating then laugh about it when they sell off their body parts. Oh well. "We have a hard time understanding" is really another way of saying, "my morality is better than yours." That you don't understandable is irrelevant to my point, and the point made by others, which seems to evade you guys over and over again. Now, I didn't use the word "murder." That's your word. I used "kill." "Murder" is unjustified homicide. But justification, outside of sheer matters of law, is based on morality. If you were raped or someone murdered your child you might feel differently about taking the life of someone. This would be natural. In general, humans have a natural proclivity for revenge. However, Christians are forbidden to take out vengeful retribution against evil-doers. So if I have an experience with Christ that directs me to suppress my natural desire to kill the offenders maybe you can understand how outcome can be affected by the will of a "higher power" for my life. Or, hell, I may just be a sociopath who likes to kill people for fun and eat their livers with fava beans, and for whatever reason, still believe in divine retribution. Or karma. Certainly you can understand the concept why that might have a dampening effect. Or, maybe you're not a sociopath, and maybe I'm not, so that desire would not naturally come up, but surely you can understand that your repugnance to a sociopath's desire to eat a human liver with fava beans is quite useless to the sociopath, and that rational argument is impossible. In a world free of an absolute morality, at bottom it's nothing but emotion against emotion. Not reason against reason. You're never going to go from emotion to reason no matter how hard you try. You may as well try to reason with a lion that killing gazelles is "immoral." And yet you act as if your morality, which in your worldview can be nothing but emotional repugnance, has a reality outside of yourself. But you have no rational grounds to stand on. This is to your credit actually, for you still have a "chest", you simply deny where it came from, and why it matters to the degree you act like it does. If you want to know why, read The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. I hope that helps. My will be donemike1962_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Fear of punishment from God is certainly extra motivation to behave a certain way. Although, for most people, I don’t think that’s the primary reason that they behave in a way that they consider moral. I also don't think that punishment from God is why most people consider certain things as immoral. If God appeared in the sky - apparent to all - and said that wearing blue socks will result in eternal damnation, the vast majority of people would probably stop wearing blue socks. But would we consider it immoral? I don't think so. We still wouldn't view wearing blue socks the same way we do murder or stealing. It would just be something that we'd be careful to not do.
But he also understands that empathy is just a feeling and like all feelings the calculating part of the brain can, over time, suppress it.
I can't imagine anyone who isn't an idiot - and probably also insane - who would actually try such a thing.
LH and GUN: The differences in attitude make absolutely no difference in behavior. Idiots.
Sigh. I never said such a thing.
BTW, neither of you has laid a finger on the arguments set forth here:
I still can’t make sense of the argument there:
He would consider empathy to be nothing but weak-kneed sentimentality.
Empathy is a central part of who we are (unless one's a pyschopath) - and plays a central role in what we desire and what makes us happy. Barry believes that a “clear-eyed” materialist would push his empathy aside. Yeah, that makes sense. Why not view ALL desires as “weak-kneed sentimentality”?goodusername_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

LH and GUN, Person 1 believes all moral rules are the product of mere sentiment. Call it empathy if you like. But he also understands that empathy is just a feeling and like all feelings the calculating part of the brain can, over time, suppress it. Person 2 believes that a maximally great, perfect, good and just God grounds the rules of morality in his being. The rules are objective and real and consequences necessarily follow if they are broken. LH and GUN: The differences in attitude make absolutely no difference in behavior. Idiots. And no, LH, I don't call you an idiot because it find it agreeable, fun or otherwise pleasurable. In fact it causes me great pain that you spew your idiocy here and we have to clean up after you. BTW, neither of you has laid a finger on the arguments set forth here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/psychopath-as-ubermensch-or-nietzsche-at-columbine/ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/follow-up-on-psychopath-as-ubermensch/Barry Arrington_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

I think GUN and I are on the same wavelength here. To explain my perspective, at least, I don't think that fear of divine punishment (or disapproval) is actually what restrains most people from wanton murder and rapine. In other words, suppose God Almighty descended from heaven and said, "We're going back to Old Testament rules and then some. The Iranians have offended me. There will be no punishments whatsoever for killing, torturing, or eating Iranians." I think the vast, vast majority of Christians would continue behaving as they, and pretty much everyone else, do already: not murdering or torturing or eating people. To those of us who don't see the threat of divine punishment as the driver of morality, your assertion sounds downright bizarre. We have a hard time understanding the position that you'd love to go do some murders. I think GUN said pretty much the same thing, but better and more efficiently.Learned Hand_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

There are some people I would probably kill if I could get away with it, if I didn’t think a Creator existed who frowns on such actions. You bet your ass it matters. I hope that help.
Ok, well, keep the faith.goodusername_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT}

goodusername: Can you not do those same things if morality is objective?
There are some people I would probably kill if I could get away with it, if I didn't think a Creator existed who frowns on such actions. You bet your ass it matters. I hope that help.mike1962_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand: Are feelings of guilt and fear of punishment the only reason you don’t chop people up and eat them?
What difference does it make? There's no rational reason not to suppress and ignore them, if I choose. My will be done.mike1962_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

So then, after digesting all of this, the bottom line is, if I listen to the subjectivists and adopt their core philosophy, who do not believe there is any absolute morality, I am free to jettison those old pesky irrational moral feelings and go ahead and strike out and do whatever the hell I want, WITHOUT ANY RATIONAL BASIS FOR GUILT! Wahoo! I’m in! If I feel like it, I get to chop you up and eat you, without guilt. (With a side of fava beans, of course.) And do anything else I want. I LOVE IT. Count me in. I should have become a materialist, atheist, nihilist a long time ago. It sounds like FUN! My will be done.
I'm not sure how any of that is related to whether morality is subjective or not. Can you not do those same things if morality is objective?goodusername_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply