Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Should we recognise that “laws of nature” extend to laws of our human nature? (Which, would then frame civil law.)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Laws of Nature are a key part of the foundation of modern science. This reflects not only natural, law-like regularities such as the Law of Gravitation that promotes the Earth to the heavens (from being the sump of the cosmos) but also the perspective of many founders that they were thinking God’s creative, ordering providential and world-sustaining thoughts after him. The focal topic asks us whether our civil law is effectively an accident of power balances, or else, could it be accountable to a built in law that pivots on first duties coeval with our humanity.

The issue becomes pivotal, once we ponder the premise that the typical, “natural” tendency of government is to open or veiled lawless oligarchy:

So, let us hear Cicero in his On The Republic, Bk 3 [c. 55 – 54 BC]:

{22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, On the Republic, Bk 3

This, of course, is further reflected in his De Legibus, which lays out a framework:

With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions.

They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones.

We see in the Angelic Doctor, a broadening of the framework, elaborating four domains of law:

Thus, following Aquinas, we can see that arguably there is an intelligible core of law coeval with our responsible, rational, significantly free nature. This built-in law turns on inescapable, thus self-evident truths of justice and moral government, which rightly govern what courts may rule or parliaments legislate, per the premise of justice moderated by requisites of feasible order in a world that must reckon with the hardness of men’s hearts. Where, we are thus duty bound, morally governed creatures.

Hence, we come to the sense of duty attested to by sound conscience [“conscience is a law”], that breathes fire into what would otherwise be inert statements in dusty tomes. We may term these, by extension, the Ciceronian First Duties of Reason:

FIRST DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE REASON

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties,

1 – to truth, 

2 – to right reason

3 – to prudence, 

4 – to sound conscience, 

5 – to neighbour; so also, 

6 – to fairness and

7 – justice 

x – etc.

[I add, Mar 12, for clarity:] {Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we seek to evade duties or may make errors does not overthrow the first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies.}

Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, natural law,” coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of “self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator” in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law.

The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly acquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right.

Where, prudence can also be seen via Aristotle’s summary:  “. . . [who aptly] defined prudence as recta ratio agibilium, ‘right reason applied to practice.’ The emphasis on ‘right’ is important . . .  Prudence requires us to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong . . . If we mistake the evil for the good, we are not exercising prudence—in fact, we are showing our lack of it.”

Of course, we just saw a 400+ comment thread that saw objectors insistently, studiously evading the force of inescapability, where their objections consistently show that they cannot evade appealing to the same first duties that they would dismiss or suggest were so obscure and abstract that they cannot serve as a practical guide. The history of the modern civil rights movement once the print revolution, the civilisational ferment surrounding the reformation and the rise of newspapers, bills, coffee houses etc had unleashed democratising forces speaks to the contrary. The absurdity of appealing to what one seeks to overthrow simply underscores its self evidence. But free, morally governed creatures are just that, free. Even, free to cling to manifest absurdities.

This approach, of course, sharply contrasts with the idea that law is in effect whatever those who control the legal presses issue under that heading; based on power balances and so in effect might and/or manipulation. Aquinas’ corrective should suffice to show that not all that is issued under colour of law is lawful, or even simply prudent towards preserving order in a world of the hardness of men’s hearts.

Yes, obviously, if we are governed by built-in law, that raises the question that there is a cosmic law-giver, qualified to do so not by mere sheer power but also by being inherently good and utterly wise. Such a root of reality also answers the Hume Guillotine and the Euthyphro dilemma: an inherently good and utterly wise, necessary and maximally great being root of reality would bridge IS and OUGHT in the source of all reality and would issue good and wise, intelligible built-in law.

What of Mathematics? The answer is, of course, that a core of Math is inherent in the framework of any possible world. So, this would extend that core of Math tied to sets, structures and quantities expressed in N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc to any actual world. That answers Wigner’s puzzlement on the universal power of Math and it points to, who has power to create an actual world in which we have fine tuning towards C-Chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life? Likewise, it is suggestive on the source of the language and algorithms found in D/RNA etc.

Lest we forget, here is Crick, to his son, March 19, 1953:

So, we have come full circle, to law as expressing ordering principles of the dynamic-stochastic physical world and those of the world of intelligent, rational, morally governed creatures. Surprise — NOT — the design thesis is central to both. END

PS: As a reminder, the McFaul dirty form colour revolution framework and SOCOM insurgency escalator

U/D Feb 14: Outlines on first principles of right reason:

Here, we see that a distinct A — I usually use a bright red ball on a table:

and contrast a red near-ball in the sky, Betelgeuse as it went through a surprise darkening (something we observed separately and independently, it was not a figment of imagination):

. . . is distinct from the rest of the world. A is itself i/l/o its characteristics of being, and it is distinct from whatever else is not A, hence we see that in w there is no x that is A and ~A and any y that is in W will either be A or not A but not both or neither. These three are core to logic: P/LOI, LNC, LEM.

We may extend to governing principles that we have duties toward — never mind whoever may disregard such (and thereby cause chaos):

U/D March 13: The challenge of building a worldview i/l/o the infinite regress issue:

A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}

Framing a ship:

. . . compare a wooden model aircraft:

. . . or a full scale, metal framework jet:

In short, there is always a foundational framework for any serious structure.

Comments
From https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/#comment-764161
So what is this Truth that everyone is so certain they know?
This and nearly all that follows is nonsense. My point is that if the Democrats won the electoral college fairly and squarely, they would be all over the evidence to prove it. But they were just the opposite. Why? Interesting omission is any reference to the actual claims made but more regurgitated irrelevancies. jerry
This thread ended up discussing elections. Ballot auditing is still going on in Arizona for the 2020 presidential election. Here are the procedures for examining the ballots that are taking place as I write. https://www.cyberninjas.com/static/20210429155650/Wake-TSI-Counting-Floor-Policies.pdf Here are digital evidence handling policies https://www.cyberninjas.com/static/20210429172814/CyFIR-Digital-Evidence-Handling-Policies.pdf Here are cameras of the floor. https://azaudit.org/ jerry
Jerry, what amazes me is that there aren't videos of poll workers running in terror as residents of nearby graveyards march in to vote. KF PS: There is a story from my native city. A freshly minted policeman, patrolling near a major public cemetery saw a gentleman walking on the road just outside said resting place. The man was carrying a coffin. Suspicious, said shiny new officer challenged the man. Corpie, it gettin' crowded where me live so me movin' house. Said constable could not be seen for the cloud of smoke from burning shoe leather as he exited the vicinity at near escape velocity. kairosfocus
I believe this is highly immoral
Controversial Georgia Law Requires Poll Workers To Check Voters For A Pulse Republican Governor Brian Kemp has signed into law sweeping overhauls to Georgia’s election law, including a provision requiring poll workers to check for a pulse before allowing voters to cast a ballot.
Disturbing the dead is not something we should do. Let them vote in peace. (Votem in pace) https://babylonbee.com/news/controversial-georgia-law-requires-poll-workers-to-check-voters-for-a-pulse jerry
MNY, there are two relevant kinds of ignorance. Primary, where one simply has not been informed, or has not recognised. There is induced, secondary ignorance. That is, where one enshrines a crooked yardstick as standard for straight ['true" is the technical term], accurate and upright, then what is genuinely such can never conform to the crooked standard. In cases of serious indoctrination, there will be rejection of a naturally straight, upright plumb line. This last speaks to self-evident truth. KF PS: To establish existence of SETs, note that || + ||| --> V is such. Cluster 2 and 3 fingers then reunite, voila. Likewise, a SET can come from undeniability, eg E = error exists, to assert ~E is to say it is error to say E, oops. Likewise, Epictetus showed how core logic is a case of inescapable and unprovable first truth, as the attempt to prove requires the logic already, and the demand for proof hinges on that too. Indeed, this already shows the objector trying to gain rhetorical traction by inadvertently appealing to what he would dismiss, including that we have a duty to think straight. PPS: The key point is, there are first duties as SETs, where as duty is moral obligation, we have self evident truths of moral character. That runs up against relativist/ subjectivist/ emotivist cultural biases and widespread indoctrination on an unbridgeable gap between facts and values. However, we may recognise through observing how we argue, reason or quarrel: we find that invariably we appeal to duties at first level. This even obtains for would-be objectors. Then, try to compose an objection that does not so appeal . . . futile. Instead, let us recognise the first duties as a framework of built in law coeval with our humanity. Yes, that makes best sense on understanding our world and ourselves to be creatures of the inherently good, utterly wise, necessary and maximally great being we readily identify as God. If you have a visceral objection to that, tough; the flow of the logic is from observation of rational conduct to self evident first duties, not from God as issuing decrees arbitrarily. Indeed, here, the implicit invitation in the abductive step of what best explains, is to show that God is not a serious candidate necessary being [tough] or that as such a serious candidate, he is impossible of being as a square circle is [tougher, esp after the collapse of the logical form problem of evil]. Further, God as so understood is non-arbitrary, what God would implant as mind guided by conscience, would be shaped by his inherent goodness and utter wisdom. My real interest, is that I have noted a dangerous corruption of civil law and find here a sounder foundational framework, built in, rationally evident core law coeval with our humanity. That is, the natural law pivoting on justice, due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. kairosfocus
People are a lot more stupid than you think they are, Kairosfocus. I post about subjectivity for years. Only the basic logic of it, which is about as complex as the logic of tic tac toe. Well within my reach. The internet is full of total morons who think they can measure emotions and personal character in the brain. So they have no feelings by which they identify someone's emotions and personal character, they try to measure and calculate it, as cold hard fact. No charity in judgement, no meanness either, just stonecold measurement and calculation. It's a total catastrophy, it's killing people's emotions. It has catastrophic consequences for individuals and society. Evolution theory with it's use of subjective terminology in an objectified sense, is shifting people's understanding of emotion and personal character towards it being understood as a matter of fact. With differential reproductive "success", the entire life cycle of organisms is explained using all kinds of subjective terminology, in regards to this "success". And ofcourse, subjectivity, emotion, personal opinion, are inherently creationist concepts, which creationism is banned. So subjectivity get's to be crushed, by evolution theory. Your ideas about right reasoning, they are not fundamental, they are very high goals. The reality is, the fundamentals of the concepts of opinion and fact, are broken in academics. And you are supposed to give attention to creationism / intelligent design ideas, on this intelligent design blog. You should give more consideration and priority to the creationist conceptual scheme, because it is based on the basic logic of creationism and intelligent design. mohammadnursyamsu
MNY, do you realise that in objecting you appealed to said duties, yet again reflecting their inescapability, so self-evident character? Of course, it is "naive" to say we have duties to truth and justice, to reason, to prudence [including warrant for knowledge claims] etc. They are the guidelines by which we test what too often we do, and evaluate where it leads. As in the patently accelerating chaos. KF kairosfocus
VL, Jerry is right; especially as there is clear evidence of serious election manipulation. Including, corruption of poll workers through political activism. KF kairosfocus
I say that is profoundly immoral,
Apparently the report of not allowing water to be given out by the Georgia bill is fake news. It exempts poll workers. https://twitter.com/HolmesJosh/status/1376176111508393984 jerry
Viola Lee @ 1205, well put. Where I live, employers must give employees four consecutive hours off to vote. Seems like a simple solution. Steve Alten2
The first duties of responsible reason, are naive. It's all about doing your best, and being good, and stuff like that. Notice the US constitution doesn't say anything about being good people. It is just neutral. It says freedom of speech. In fact the constitution goes out of it's way to support speech that is judged not to be good. See, that is not naive do-goodery, that is smart. Looking at the US constitution, the smart thing intellecutally is to support the concept of opinion, and the concept of fact. Not to say which fact is accurate, and what opinions are good, but to just define what an opinion is, and what a fact is. Then you get a constitution of the mind. Definitions: An opinion is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / fact And with this constitution of the mind, each can produce their own personal opinions, and obtain their own facts, as they see fit. mohammadnursyamsu
Oh, the slippery slope. Are there laws about not approaching people in line? I know there are laws about political advocacy in a polling area, so that would have to be monitored, just as it is now. Of course the real solution is cutting down on the need for lines: more polling places, staying open later, laws to allow people to take off work to vote, mail-in and advance voting, etc. Viola Lee
I say that is profoundly immoral,
Why? It is not common for allow anyone to approach another while in line to vote. There is no law against the person having water or brining it with them or even eating a sandwich they brought. Next there will be concessions to sell all sorts of things to people in line to vote. The reason to prevent such a thing is to remove any attempt to influence people in line. jerry
Reposted from the "Closing in on life" thread. 110 Viola LeeMarch 28, 2021 at 11:54 am KF closed all the old thread on duties to use right reason, etc, so I’ll post this here, as it relates to EDTA’s posts on unity vs diversity, and on the ongoing topics of moral standards and the decay of civilization.. So here’s a question: is it moral or immoral, by KF’s oft-cited “seven inescapable first duties of reason” (truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, to neighbour; fairness and justice) to make it against the law to give water to people standing in line to vote, as Georgia just did? I say that is profoundly immoral, and is an example of the ways our democracy and civilization are being threatened. Is this an issue upon which we can agree, or not? If not, can someone explain to me what possible justification the Georgia legislature could have for this? Viola Lee
This thread is still open for comments. It contains discussion on right reason and several comments on homosexuality. I made a comment of Stoicism on Friday. jerry
Rightfully a dead OP but here is something of relevance. Or is it? A lecture series on Stoicism. But it doesn't seem to mention Cicero or the natural law. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/think-like-a-stoic-ancient-wisdom-for-today-s-world But seems aligned to the OP.
Think like a Stoic: Ancient Wisdom for Today's World Seneca, on Time Management. In one of the many letters he wrote, Seneca instructs his friend, Lucilius, on how to use time in the best way possible. He advised Lucilius: “Hold every hour in your grasp. Lay hold of to-day’s task, and you will not need to depend so much upon tomorrow’s. While we are postponing, life speeds by.” Epictetus, on Debating Others. Epictetus instructs us to respond to people with whom we disagree by not mocking or maligning them—or walking away. Instead, the Stoic patiently engages them and does their best to explain their own point of view, with the objective being dialogue, not dispute. Marcus Aurelius, on Assigning Labels. One way to make the world better is to be mindful of the labels we give ourselves. Marcus states, "When you have assumed these names—good, modest, truthful, rational, a man of equanimity, and magnanimous—take care that you do not change these names; and if you should lose them, quickly return to them." Epictetus, on Desiring Things. Stoics like Epictetus felt freedom was achieved not by satisfying desire but by eliminating it. "The more we value things outside our control,” he notes, “the less control we have. ... Either you're going to be depressed when your wish is not realized or foolishly pleased with yourself if it is, overjoyed for the wrong reasons."
I'm not trying to revive this thread. Anything but. Just posting something that may be of interest to a few. jerry
MNY, I suspect, not all socialists would agree that socialism in general is applied naturalism in politics. Communism yes, though nowadays it gets weird. As for Nazism, it is actually of the left, just right of Communism, a sort of revision that figured out how to strike deals with power centres. As in, note Mussolini was a leading socialist who split over nationalism, and nazi is short for national socialist german workers/labour party. I saw labour used in contemporary translation. Oh yes, China seems to have reverted to Fascism, the Nationalists were actually fascists. On the whole I think the common political spectrum has passed sell-by date long since. The Speaker's Right as place of honour in days of monarchy as the honourable, with grades to his left/ degree of radicalism measured by seating otherwise is a patently dead framework. The notion that constitutional democracy is right wing, that populism not favoured by the duly fashionably lefty chattering classes is right wing extremism comparable to nazis is little more than agit prop, especially when, my riots with arson and mayhem good, your riots are insurrection and armed uprising. An alternative anchored on the long run of history and exposing the tendency to fall into lawless oligarchy is more analytically useful. KF kairosfocus
I present a much simpler analysis of the problem. Socialism is the polticial application of materialism. Then from this root of materialism, there is right wing socialism, called nazism, and left wing socialism called communism. You can see this is true in China. China moved from left wing, to right wing socialism, over the last decades. Now they do genocides of Tibet, and Uygur. They have far reaching eugenics laws, which is also part of common culture. They have Han racism. Basically the communists have become more like nazi's, while remaining true to socialism, as it is rooted in materialism. Nazism is a materialistic idea, in the sense that according to nazism, personal character of people is a matter of biological fact. That idea is the main thing in nazism. Rather than being courteous, honest, charitable, in forming a judgement on what the personal character of someone is, the nazi's had an emotionless measuring and calculating attitude towards personal character, because they believed it to be a factual issue. These attitudes were the basis for the warmongering and genocides. So the problem with socialists is a very simple one. People who systematically make bad personal opinions, because they don't understand how to make a personal opinion. It is true, is it not? The socialists simply make bad personal opinions all the time, about any issue whatever. It is because socialists don't understand how to form a personal opinion, because materialism only validates facts. And materialism is at the root of socialism. The existence of a material thing, is a matter of fact. Personal opinion plays no role in materialism. The solution to defeating socialism, is simply to teach creationism. Because creationism validates both concepts of opinion and fact, each in their own right. The creationist conceptual scheme: 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / fact The concept of opinion is validated in category 1 of the creationist conceptual scheme, the concept of fact is validated in category number 2. http://www.creationwiki.org/Creationist_Philosophy mohammadnursyamsu
SA2, you have mis-stated the case and drawn chalk to cheese comparisons, especially as regards the ongoing holocaust of 800+ million of our living posterity. The reason why we take very strong measures on inherently criminal acts that cannot be eliminated is to restrain them to somewhat manageable levels. KF kairosfocus
SA
Much like gambling and abortion. Attempts were made to prohibit both but they were unenforceable. Therefore, the wise approach was taken to regulate them rather than continue the farce that they could be abolished.
I think your analogy to gambling makes sense, but I don’t think the comparison to abortion is appropriate. Gambling, like drinking, is highly regulated, with rules on where it can take place, the games and equipment that can be used, how old you have to be. I don’t think abortion is that highly regulated. count of crisco
Kairosfocus “ You will note, I spoke to prohibition, which garnered enough support to become a US Constitutional Amendment, but which proved unenforceable so that the path of wisdom is regulation. “ Much like gambling and abortion. Attempts were made to prohibit both but they were unenforceable. Therefore, the wise approach was taken to regulate them rather than continue the farce that they could be abolished. Steve Alten2
. JVL (the flawed double-standard remains in your reasoning, as it must) Upright BiPed
And I like you, too, Jerry! :-) Viola Lee
VL, once a self evident truth is present, that is in itself a correct answer. That which rejects such a SET is false. Thus, SETs help us to correct errors. Also, there may be substantially equivalent formulations. Next, one of the first duties happens to be prudence, which is by no means simplistic or the like, discernment, famously, grows through lifelong practice. In context, it also speaks to one of the thorniest challenges of civil law and civilisation: hardness of heart that forces regulatory compromises. You will note, I spoke to prohibition, which garnered enough support to become a US Constitutional Amendment, but which proved unenforceable so that the path of wisdom is regulation. There are cases where the time was such that for example slavery could be legally abolished, though it yet lurks in shadows. The simplistic picture you have tried to paint then rhetorically dismiss is a strawman fallacy. KF kairosfocus
KF writes, "VL, on plumb lines vs crooked yardsticks, it should be clear that we are speaking metaphorically. The point is, a plumb line is NATURALLY straight. ....The point is, there is an infinity of varieties of crookedness, no two of which will match. Any two plumb lines will agree, as they rely on inherent natural principles." Yes, KF, I called it a metaphor. I know what a metaphor is. I said exactly what you said: that it implies there is a correct answer and every other answer is wrong. That's why it's a revealing metaphor about the fundamental things I disagree with you about. Morality is not subject to the same kinds of "laws" as the mathematical and physical worlds are. Also, I have worked in construction and have used plumb bobs, levels, squares, and chalk lines many times in building things. I used to start my geometry class by bringing in my carpentry tools to illustrate beginning concepts and theorems. So I would suggest you lower your condescension level a bit. Viola Lee
Jerry, The regular trolls are not interested in being honest. Difficult to have a real conversation with any of them. Andrew asauber
Kf, I’ve said this several times on this thread. They don’t care about logic and evidence. If you repeat it a thousand times, it will have no effect. The “they” are a mixture of various malcontents who don’t really care about truth and others. So truth will have no effect. Find one that responds to a logical argument and thanks you. It is a rarity. Also you are the point person for a worldview they distaste. They can not defend their own but hate what you represent because they have committed to another contradictory one. They come here believing we are easy marks thinking we are ignorant and bigoted and find out it is themselves that are ignorant and bigoted. Their reaction is near uniform. It’s never, I didn’t think of it that way or I didn’t know that. It’s almost always a shift to another form of attack. They desperately want to find fault in our position. They can not afford to admit that we represent a superior position. jerry
KF said:
Failure of civilisation is a fairly serious matter — we are still dealing with effects of the catastrophe from 1914 on. KF
That's the problem, though. Nothing that happens in this life is "a fairly serious matter," as far as I'm concerned. I guess that's why I don't take such "duties" to community seriously. If "this world" is the entire reach of the ramifications of my duties here, then in the context of my perspective - eternity - it's really not even worth the effort. I have much more far-reaching things to concern myself with. William J Murray
WJM, the issue in context is best seen i/l/o the ship of state parable . . . ill advised mutiny leading to voyages of folly end in ruin. Athens is the capital example:
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 issue of competence and character as qualifications to rule] 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 [--> the sophists, the Demagogues, Alcibiades and co, etc]; 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 [--> implies a need for a corruption-restraining minority providing proverbial salt and light, cf. Ac 27, as well as justifying a governing structure turning on separation of powers, checks and balances], 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)
Failure of civilisation is a fairly serious matter -- we are still dealing with effects of the catastrophe from 1914 on. KF kairosfocus
KF, Let's say (arguendo) that your entire argument is correct; we have these duties and they should be attended to in terms of our community context. Now, let's say I don't do my duties. So what? The idea of duties seems to me to include a penalty for not doing your duty, and/or a reward or payment for performing your duty. It seems you warn of the collapse of society and, generally, bad things happening as a result; but again, so what? Let's say the whole world turns into a chaotic mess of competing will-to-power lawless oligarchies (you know, what's basically existed since the dawn of human civilization) .. so what? That's how, by far, most people who ever lived on this planet have lived. "Bad stuff might more likely happen to me in life" isn't really much of a deterrent for me, and a society that operates by the principles you outline doesn't seem to me to be an attainable situation. I guess I don't understand why I should even bother with all of this seeing as I already see myself as having always lived in a form of "lawless oligarchy." "Contributing to the best society possible, even if it is an unattainable ideal" just seems like a waste of time for me. I have far more enjoyably things to do. So, is there a reward/penalty situation attached to these duties that are more significant than "bad stuff will more likely occur in your life?" William J Murray
VL, on plumb lines vs crooked yardsticks, it should be clear that we are speaking metaphorically. The point is, a plumb line is NATURALLY straight and upright so at building tech level precision, it allows us to tell whether we have built true, plumb and level. For the latter, a set square equilateral right triangle with a plumb line from the right angle vertex allows setting the level where the sea or a big lake is not visible on the horizon. I have seen Egyptian examples and hardware stores sell similar triangles plumb bobs and line even now. Of course, we have gone all laser with electronics and built in processors for high tech work; there is of course an app for that too. The point is, there is an infinity of varieties of crookedness, no two of which will match. Any two plumb lines will agree, as they rely on inherent natural principles. So, we look to a composite, the set of self-evident first principles and duties of reason to test cultural artifacts comparable to yardsticks set in the court building's wall. Which in medieval Europe notoriously differed from one town to the next. In France, reputedly there were 150k standards of measure before the metric system was introduced. Earlier, the British system was the first coherent system of weights and measures, though of course it uses many odd seeming ratios and sub units. As recently as over the past century, differences in the inch were industrial problems and Johannsen [sp?] of Sweden more or less set the industrial standard with their set of measuring blocks at 2.54 cm per inch, even. The point is, plumb lines count. KF PS: See above to SA2 on how the first duties come into play in sorting out both deductive and inductive reasoning. Cicero was right in his summary on highest reason. PPS: As there is a mathematical side, I note that things for metrology start with a perfectly flat and level surface. Three nearly flat surfaces -- cast iron seems best, most stable -- are rubbed against one another (with abrasives etc) until they agree to optically tested mutual flatness; these days interferometry is used. There is geometry involved. Then, straight edges can be established. Measuring blocks sets -- Jo blocks -- standardise and are set up so they give over 100 k differing standard lengths. They are so perfect they stick together on being brought together, with a fair degree of strength. There are debates on the dynamics involved. Of course a perfect square block will vertically match another while sitting on a proper flat. A straight edge will match the flat. Ultimately, measures trace to the ISO standards and seven base units. kairosfocus
SA2, the set of off topic toxic distractors were addressed in a prior thread. There is material reference linked above. I simply direct you further to this odd little fallacy/figure of speech, duly noting the import of the principle of explosion, [p AND ~p] => [ANYTHING], i.e. loss of discernment in chains of reasoning. This thread is about far deeper more central issues that lie behind the framework that allows us to disentangle our thinking. Where, if we struggle with self-evident first steps of reasoning then we cannot hope to address onward issues. Our intellectual, academic and professional elites have done a grave disservice to our civilisation in recent centuries, and we need to realise that before anything else. To begin to fix such, we need to go back to self evident first steps, steps which we can see to be so independent of chains of implication or discussions on inference to best explanation or weighing up of prudence, bitter compromises (just about always necessary) and sound reform. KF PS: The role of implication logic is central, both as proof structure and explanation structure. That is:
Where, p => q, we are often tempted to reason p => q but I reject q, so I reject p, however, when p is self-evident, that rejection clings to absurdity: I reject p, but p is self evident means ~p is absurd [in various ways] However, we can arbitrarily redefine terms, manipulate opinion, play lawfare, build up corrupted systems and the like to support ~p, especially when entrenched interests and ideological agendas are at stake. History since 1789 and especially from 1917 speaks on this in rivers of blood and tears. Such leads to a breakdown of rationality, organisations, societies and more. Likewise, where q is a composite of observations o1, o2 . . . on We may ask, which p currently best explains such of p1, p2 . . . pm At an earlier stage, we may examine the set of observations to sketch out possible explanations. This is abductive reasoning, a key form of modern sense inductive logic. We propose criteria of ranking, typically tied to factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power [ elegantly simple, not simplistic or ad hoc] This introduces issues of discernment and judgement as is typical of inductive reasoning In this process, self evident first principles and duties are involved but are not generally sufficient to determine the overall decision. Prudence becomes pivotal and so the habitual discipline to build it up is vital to intellectual thriving. Factual adequacy is an appeal to truth [and, when is a claimed fact so is material]. Coherence is an appeal to right reason and principles of logic including distinct identity and close corollaries non contradiction and excluded middle. Explanatory balance involves discernment and the whole involves prudence including the judgement when a conclusion is well warranted. So, when such are systematically undermined in a culture, the ability to think reliably and soundly is undermined. For practical import, look all around.
Our civilisation is in deep, deep trouble. kairosfocus
Does this mean, opposite sex marriage good, same sex marriage bad? I really can’t tell from your comment. Steve Alten2
VL, I need not further address the intrinsically disordered or its specific details for purposes of this thread; one UD thread was enough to make the basic points and the unresponsiveness to accessible evidence underscores the point. You also clearly have no answer to the direct evidence of history on the power of recognising the core of law as highest reason addressing justice, as for example we saw expressed in a state paper that is in fact the charter for modern constitutional democracy. Notice, insofar as that state paper succeeded as per the understanding of law outlined, it has universal jurisdiction. That is the power of natural law reasoning, a power that opened up a whole new province of government beyond oligarchy, with the need for stabilisation from the culture that is being so ill advisedly undermined especially since 1917. I know of impacts of the US DoI as far away as Japan in that day, with a world of beneficial impacts down to today. BTW, I have claimed no special access to the substance of right reason applied to justice, I have explicitly appealed to classics from Cicero to the US DoI, only claiming to summarise and structure. KF kairosfocus
Seeing as that most creationists still accept natural selection theory, then asserting natural selection as being God's law, might basically make them nazi's. Framing morality by natural law can only be attempted, if people have a keen understanding of the difference between objective and subjective. Religion is easily corruptible, in that one can easily switch what is properly subjective, to assert it is objective. One can easily assert the acting aspect of the objective universe is what is meant by God, and assert that the soul, is another word for the objective electrochemical reactions, and information processes, in the brain. So then subjecitivity emotions are out the window. None of you, as far as I've read, are true creationists. None of you separate creator and creation, as the creator category being what is subjective, and the creation category being what is objective. To frame civil law in terms of laws of nature, it requires to see nature in terms of decisionmaking processes. Man has natural rights, because their brain is organized for some kind of centralized decisionmaking. Then there are lower to higher level decisionmaking processes, instinct being already a pretty high level of decisionmaking, and reasoning being the highest level of decisionmaking. At the lowest level of decisionmaking would be some kind of torrent of randomness. The decisionmaking processes ought to be properly organized, where what is proper is some kind of hodge podge of many morals, with maybe some few general rules that stand out. Someone who would put their mind to it, and make a job of it, could come up with some worthwhile ideas about it. But currently what I see is that people don't understand even the basics of what it means to make a decision. Most importantly, do not comprehend that the decider is categorically subjective, and that what is decided is categorically objective. mohammadnursyamsu
Just FYI: KF, I don't believe you use "ad hom" correctly. What you think is "inherently disordered" and "in the sewer" I don't, and I don't believe your opinion has any special access to "natural law" et al. I think this highlights what is wrong with the thesis of your OP. That is my summation of the discussion. Viola Lee
JVL, though core natural law is endorsed in the NT, the natural law is not a religious document. Further to this, "love" is not merely a feeling that justifies doing as one pleases; feelings are one road to wrong. The decades old cartoon lampooning of the skunk in love with a cat who cannot figure out sound courtship or understand no, seems to have figured that out. A proper understanding of neighbour love is that one values, cherishes and does the good towards the neighbour. Where, neighbour is non exclusive, hence the point that one cannot justly claim a right to compel another to lie, or to enable evils under false colour of law: I love neighbour A and demand of neighbour B that he lie in the face of what he knows to support what I demand regarding A fails, and compelling B to enable other wrongs does not work. The Minister who held a senior officer's job hostage to his nightly dates with the officer's wife was seriously wrong, even if the wife wanted the relationship (which I doubt). True rights and freedoms are mutual and universalisable -- the point of universality of natural law. KF kairosfocus
VL, you can try the ad hom all you want, we have had enough delving on the intrinsically disordered already. It is clear that there is no good reason to dismiss the existence of self evident truths in general and on moral ones that set up law as highest reason applied to justice as due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. To top off, you have no cogent answer to the history documented in state papers. KF kairosfocus
JVL, If you think the New Testament is about allowing deviant sexual practices, you are truly missing the point. Perhaps attempting to read the New Testament to begin with would be a good start. (Because it sounds like you don't know what is in it) Andrew asauber
Viola Lee: There is not one “correct” position based on “natural law” on moral situations. Human beings have to choose the truths they are going to live by. That is what being a free, moral being means. Obviously, I would say. Let's see what Kairosfocus says. One might say that Love is the message (based on the New Testament) should be the central, core paradigm. First support, listen, and help. If you truly, really love your fellow human beings then what is a sin would be a violation of that basic tenet. To reduce that down to injunctions against certain physical practices is truly missing the whole point. JVL
A group of Catholic priests are vowing to bless same-sex unions in defiance of recent guidance from the Vatican. The group, called the Parish Priests Initiative, said in a statement that it is “deeply appalled” by the decision and vowed to “not reject any loving couple who ask to celebrate God’s blessing," according to Reuters. “We members of the Parish Priests Initiative are deeply appalled by the new Roman decree that seeks to prohibit the blessing of same-sex loving couples. This is a relapse into times that we had hoped to have overcome with Pope Francis,” the group reportedly said. “We will — in solidarity with so many — not reject any loving couple in the future who ask to celebrate God’s blessing, which they experience every day, also in a worship service,” they continued.
There is not one "correct" position based on "natural law" on moral situations. Human beings have to choose the truths they are going to live by. That is what being a free, moral being means. Viola Lee
Viola Lee: Any worldview which leads to such a condemnatory view of critical and important aspects of the lives of a substantial percentage of your fellow human beings is wrong. Ah, but you don't believe in sin, Kairosfocus does. What for you (and me) is an alternate life-style is wrong in the eyes of God for Kairosfocus. It's not him making the judgement, it's God. I expect he will say something like that but at much greater length. JVL
Your saying that the discussion of same-sex relationships is in the sewers negates all your philosophy, KF. Any worldview which leads to such a condemnatory view of critical and important aspects of the lives of a substantial percentage of your fellow human beings is wrong. Your yardstick is crooked, KF. Viola Lee
VL, It seems your core disagreement is with the concept of self-evident truth that can serve as a plumb line for evaluating claims. So, let us start with a few plumb line, self-evident truths, to establish existence:
1] || + ||| --> |||||, symbolically, 2 + 3 = 5; undeniable on pain of absurdity and demonstrating that the class is non-empty. Split your fingers into a two set and a three set, join them as a five set. 2] The Josiah Royce proposition: E - error exists. This is manifestly familiar from sums exercises with red X's. But it is not just a massively empirically supported truth and one that is a general consensus. It is undeniable. Let the denial be ~E. Already to assert ~E entails, it would be an error to assert E. So, undeniably, E. E is true, undeniably, necessarily, self evidently true. It is also warranted to incorrigible certainty. It is empirically discoverable and a widespread consensus. It is known truth. Accordingly, general skepticism denying possibility of knowledge, fails. So do radical relativism and subjectivism, which deny the possibility of objectively warranted and undeniably demonstrated knowledge. 3] Moral case study and yardstick I: it is self evidently wrong, willfully wicked, inherently criminal and evil to kidnap, bind, sexually torture and murder a young child for one's pleasure. Those who deny or dismiss or evade this do not overthrow the truth, they simply reveal their absurdities or worse. This also shows that the weak and inarticulate have rights and are owed justice. Might does not make right, manipulation does not make rights out of thin air.
In short, self evident truths exist and moral SETs exist. Such serve as plumb lines that test our cultural, institutional and cultural yardsticks, and can expose their crookedness and failure to be upright. And yes, that is a metaphor that any builder will understand; it takes sophisticated manipulation to reduce people to ignorance on such. Next, here is my actual argument, a natural law argument, which actually is a summary of the framework that built the liberation and created the constitutional democracy that we are currently wrecking, in many, many ill-advised ways -- a mutiny on the ship of state:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we seek to evade duties or may make errors does not overthrow the first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
Now, notice, these are top-level, summary principles. Indeed, each of them is worth a monograph to draw out, but just to list them is a place to begin. To see their force, ask why their opposites are unacceptable. These summarise in effect right, highest reason directed to justice, i.e. they frame law coeval with our nature as finite, fallible but rational, responsible social creatures who need the civil peace of justice to thrive. Justice, being due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. Cicero, and those who went before him, got us pointed in the right direction. Though it would take many changes starting with the printing revolution to get us to enjoy the full bloom of what is latent in these principles. Namely, a stabilisable, so potentially sustainable political space beyond oligarchy. Constitutional democracy pivoting on sound principles of justice. Including, a sound, mutually consistent understanding of rights and freedoms in balance with duties with rule of sound law. That is what is being undermined in our time through ill-justified mutiny that predictably will return us to the average situation in history: lawless oligarchy. Which is already stalking our civilisation, it has been doing that since 1917. As, the ghosts of over 100 million victims of ideological tyrannies can tell us, likewise, over 800 million victims of robbing the unborn of recognition of their right to life. Now, obviously, the seven principles do not directly dictate Constitutions or frameworks for law and the state. They allow us to prudently judge how to make progress, building on the hard-bought lessons bequeathed to us. Let me put on the table as a specific example, a key, explicitly natural law document which is the historic charter of modern liberty and democracy:
When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [--> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15; note, law as "the highest reason," per Cicero on received consensus], that all men are created equal [--> note, equality of humanity], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [--> thus there are correlative duties and freedoms framed by the balance], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
This is the sort of document of law that the first principles help us to frame. Indeed, I dare to say, the US DoI, in key respects, is -- as a valid, natural law document -- of universal jurisdiction rising above consensus or commonality of the nations, ius gentium. That is why it was so radical then and it is why it remains radical and powerful today. Of course, along the road, many painful compromises had to be struck, as can be seen in the US Constitution and amendments. That too is part of the picture, prudence dictates toleration and compromises when changes are not yet feasible. If you doubt, ponder prohibition in the US which only ended up strengthening organised crime. At the same time, we see that reforms must be just, there can be no just right or freedom to impose evils on others or to force them to enable evils. If you want to claim a novel right or freedom, the onus is to show yourself in the right and how you are not usurping power over others under false colour of law. (I have again linked on such earlier today, on relevant issues and hobby horses, there is no need to climb down into the sewers.) So, no, we do not tell truth by the clock or justice by agit prop and lawfare. And, history has to be answered to. KF kairosfocus
KF uses his plumb bob/yardstick
And yet you do the same. Didn't you just try to use a human characteristic to argue for a law?
emphasize that there is one true answer
Did he do that? I see him advocating what he believes is best but not one true answer. There may be one true answer to most questions but that is not what is under discussion here. What is under discussion is if we use right reason that flows from human nature, we will find superior laws.
all the rest are wrong.
Most things are wrong. Do you not agree with that? Human society advances by eliminating what may be appealing to all or some at one time but wrong. jerry
I wrote, "1. Claiming that there is one plumb bob, one straight yardstick, and all others are crooked, is the theme of the OP." ET replied, "No, it isn't" From the first paragraph:
The focal topic asks us whether our civil law is effectively an accident of power balances, or else, could it be accountable to a built in law that pivots on first duties coeval with our humanity.
[My emphasis] KF uses his plumb bob/yardstick to emphasize that there is one true answer that obeys the "built in law", and that all the rest are wrong. Viola Lee
Viola:
1. Claiming that there is one plumb bob, one straight yardstick, and all others are crooked, is the theme of the OP.
No, it isn't.
2. Bringing up the variety of ways that human beings experience sexuality is a case in point. Being interested in how people find love and companionship is a critical issue in today’s world. It is an example of the real-word complexity about moral issues that KF does not know how to address.
So murderers and rapists should be pardoned because that is how they find love and companionship? Just because we are bastardized versions of the original doesn't mean there isn't one objective morality. It just means that we have lost our way. And people like Viola, Acartia and all a/ mats exemplify that. ET
1. Claiming that there is one plumb bob, one straight yardstick, and all others are crooked, is the theme of the OP. I don't agree with that, and summarized my position at 1138. 2. Bringing up the variety of ways that human beings experience sexuality is a case in point. Being interested in how people find love and companionship is a critical issue in today's world. It is an example of the real-word complexity about moral issues that KF does not know how to address. 3. But KF thinks this is a "sewer" topic. That says a great deal about KF's problems, but it doesn't address the purpose of the example, which is to show that there is not some one correct stand on moral issues. KF's own position on this is based on emotions (primarily disgust, it seems), not the qualities of conscience, neighborliness, fairness, and justice that he claims are inherent duties. 4. The fact that same-sex relationships has been discussed before is irrelevant. KF's "right reason" philosophy has been discussed dozens of times before. Does that mean he should quit posting about it now? Viola Lee
Kf, The OP is obvious. The issue is that it is also obvious to those who don’t share your worldview. So they attack the obvious with distractions/distortions because your worldview ideas are deplorable (to use a recent infamous American word) to them not the logic of the OP. They cannot justify their own worldview because it has no justification other than assertions and emotions. So they use defenses such as others do not believe or point to what they believe are inconsistencies in your worldview whether actual or not. Your worldview is not perfect so it must be wrong begging the question that no other worldview comes close to making any sense. They are not here to advocate but to discredit in any way they can. They are not unintelligent and often actually quite clever. But they are not driven by wishing others well but only to undermine. So trying to use reason and evidence is fruitless. I first appeared on this forum 15 years ago. Nothing has changed. Just the names commenting. UD is a microcosm of the world and if you go to other forums, the same phenomenon appears even with the highly educated. You will not win anybody over. Just look at the hundreds of times they have been shown wrong only to move on to some other supposed criticism or shortcoming. Obviously, it frequently gets personal. jerry
Upright BiPed: You were so eager to attack ID proponents that you actually used it as an opportunity to suggest that my siblings and I were cheating the facility with our demands. I would just like to say, clearly and unambiguously, that if I said that or implied that I completely and utterly apologise. I don't remember the complete context; I'd like to think I was misunderstood and clarified my opinion later but . . . I am very sorry for your loss; my own mother passed away 40 years ago and it's still something I find difficult to deal with at times. It's like losing a limb, you don't get over it, you learn to work around it. Again, I sincerely apologise if I questioned your methods for trying to protect your mother from harm. It bothers me a lot to think I did that. JVL
WJM, the DUTY is unavoidable, but of course we can always act contrary to it in a particular situation. More broadly, what cannot be evaded is to appeal to said duty when we argue or quarrel. The list is actually incomplete, hence etc. I pointed to the microcosm-holographic principle, where one facet involves the others and the others in turn involve the one we happen to look at, which is why there is a parallelism involved. The context is community, which immediately invokes duty to neighbour so to fairness and justice. Principles of reason can be abused to mislead, deceive, manipulate, defraud, oppress one's neighbour. That predator doubtless planned how he would kidnap and abuse that school child, likely expecting to strangle the child when he was finished with his sexual assault, which was doubtless intended to give him sexual pleasure from what he was doing as well as from the helpless plight of his victim. (It seems the child asphyxiated.) Conscience is an inner voice that if sound gives testimony to duty. Prudence involves warrant and due balance, discernment and many other things that govern even the act of reasoning. Truth is pivotally involved in reasoning, which in turn involves any number of principles that help us discern truth, justice, soundness, opportunities, benefits and costs and much more. Fairness and justice of course serve the thriving and sustainability of community in the mutual interest, involving of course our individual interest. They are also directly involved in sound choice of goals. And much more. KF kairosfocus
KF @1163, I realize that there's more to your position than what I agreed to, but at least now I understand - basically - what you are saying about the "root" level duty to right reason, how it is both unavoidable and and ought. I not only have to use the principles of logic, it is also at the root of any ought that proceeds towards any goal, even if I'm using it badly or using it for "evil" ends. I had to disentangle that from your list of first duties because from my perspective (which of course could be erroneous) at least some those other things on the list aren't in the same category, such as conscience, fairness and justice. I don't consider them to be "parallel prior duties" - at least not yet. I seem to better understand you when you put your explanations in terms of goals; for me, pointing at the goal crystallizes the oughts that serve the goal. What is the goal of justice or fairness oughts? What is the goal of oughts of conscience? I don't see how these are parallel to the goal of logic. It seems you are saying that your version of "right reason" is tied up in pursuing whatever goals these other things are in service of. IOW, can you identify the higher level goal(s) that would define "right reason" in terms of sorting out my oughts with respect to these supposedly "parallel" duties? William J Murray
WJM, pardon disciplinary distractions. I turn to 1044: >>KF said: WJM, the goal of logic, more properly, of right reason, is . . . manifestly . . . to have well warranted confidence that one’s conclusions are true, prudent, reliable, correct. KF OMG!! I think I finally understand you and agree with you!>> 1: I spoke to naturally evident purpose. >>You aren’t talking about ultimate goals when you say “first duty,”>> 2: I was speaking of the first duties of reason, getting our thinking, arguing, deciding, rule-making etc straightened out. >> you’re talking about the root-level steps you have to take to pursue any goal!>> 3: To responsibly pursue any goal compatible with the long term good. >>First step: you have to identify the goal.>> 4: Before we can identify a goal and deem it worthy of pursuit, we have to straighten out how we think, reason, argue, etc. >> This is an existential level ought, >> 5: In the sense, that prudence is charioteer of the virtues, steering us aright. >>an inescapable duty>> 6: Prudence is a first duty, one that is a facet of a framework of mutually involved duties. They are parallel priorities and constraints on our thinking, deciding and acting. >> that must precede any other thought or action>> 7: There are parallel priority duties. >> towards the target goal. >> 8: Actually identifying a goal clearly comes fairly late in the decision-making process as the disciplines of applied prudence tell us, i.e. management. >>Just to have a goal you have to identify things – identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction.>> 9: This brings out the point that we get to the level of setting responsible goals, mid course, not at the start. Now, 1048: >>So, if my goal is to explain my position to you, even when I am saying “you are wrong”>> 10: By that time, a responsible party has had to establish error and the reason one avoids such. 11: The claim also implies that there is mutual recognition of the need and duty to avoid error. >> and explaining something in contradiction to root-level oughts, I still ought form the letters and sequences of words rationally and coherently, using “right reason” (as best I can) to convey that meaning to you,>> 11: First duties are deeply bound up in the process and are unavoidable. They are also mutually bound up in one another so each points to and involves the others. >> and I still have to do it when I lie or mislead.>> 12: The liar particularly parasites off the principle that general truth telling is a basis for trust, communication and community, thence human thriving. Such parasitism is actually an anticivilisational, misanthropic act, often of small degree [taking from the cookie jar] but can amount to ruinous behaviour [setting up and murdering prisoners dressed in Polish uniforms to create a false impression that Poland attacked Germany in Sept 1939]. >> Even if I am manipulating others emotionally, I have to apply, and ought apply, right reasoning in the attempt to do so.>> 13: Had right reason been applied, one would turn back from deceit. But of course, clever liars make ruthless but rational calculations; just they are unreasonable and irresponsible. >>So, “right reasoning” is inherently implied regardless of what I’m doing or why I’m doing it, or else the attempt to attain my goal can’t even get off the ground.>> 14: True enough as it stands. However duties to reason are entangled with other duties, truth, prudence, neighbour, justice etc. Such would point away from deceit etc. KF kairosfocus
CC, consider whether you would talk as you have posted if you were sitting in my living room or even at the same table in a rum shop. You have continued with disruptive, ill-informed and ill-advised behaviour. That speaks volumes. KF kairosfocus
UB, at this point, you are quite right to expose the evasions by those playing the sort of rhetorical stunts above. As for whether I imagine people of my [principal] race to be inferior, obviously we are all humans. As I understand it, due to a suspicious population crash, the genetic diversity across our species is apparently less than that in a typical baboon troop. In any case, we have foolishly made far too much of minor adaptations to hostile climes. My point above, for cause, was to correct VL on the gross rhetorical blunder of trying to draw an immoral equivalency from objecting on principle with significant facts, to what is inherently disordered and damaging, to prejudices against people for minor genetic adaptations fitting them for hostile climes. All, in service to toxically distracting a thread on a serious issue that is pivotal to restoring the soundness to law and government that we sorely need. KF kairosfocus
VL, JVL, CC et al: Has it dawned on you that there already was a significant UD thread on one of your hobby horse, go down in the sewer distractions? Has it registered that many people, for cause, are not fond of going into the sewer, especially on a regular basis? (No, CC, it is not oh the oven got too hot, it is that there is no good reason to go down the sewer yet again in pursuit of your favourite red herring.) Has it not registered after many years that I do not lightly say that a principled stand on well established (but often suppressed or dismissed) facts is not to be equated to the crude prejudice we term racism? So, it is only responsible to recognise and respect that there are people who for principled jurisprudential cause and with significant underlying facts dissent from the currently fashionable perversities, promotion of self-mutilation and linked misanthropic, anti-civilisational follies being pushed by exceedingly ill advised elites, who have disregarded not only first principles but many bloodily bought, sobering lessons of history? VL, did it register with you that you did just that? JVL and CC, that you piled on gleefully, apparently not realising -- after information was discussed earlier and linked above -- that the popular opinions and what is increasingly imposed under colour of law have been manipulated through extremely sophisticated agit prop campaigns over decades, driven by frankly misanthropic, anti-civilisational agendas pivoting on the crooked yardstick manipulation principle? Don't you realise that for 2,700 years, there has been a warning on record about corrupting a civilisation through moral inversion and about where it leads? I guess, our civilisation is yet again hell-bent on learning the ship of state lesson the hard way. For cause, I am gavelling a toxic, needless distraction and I have already highlighted the slander and piling on that should have been apologised for. The focus of the OP is manifestly vital, if we are to restore soundness to our civilisation before it is too bloodily late. KF kairosfocus
. #1156
He’s obsessed with anyone who has stood up to him. He keeps track of conversations from months…
Well, look at your little sock go. My participation here on UD has been fairly sparse over the past couple of years, so I can easily open my Wordpress dashboard to see my comments only, which in turn, allows me to find your words in just a matter of seconds. Frankly, it’s all fairly easy. In any case, I can’t understand why you think people should forget the things you say, but I can readily see why you would want them to. So … your entire comment in #1156 is designed to attack me personally instead of addressing the issues on the table. You want to position me as a loon, perhaps hoping that if you can sling enough shit I’ll shut up and look the other way. That’s not likely to happen, and besides, I am already fully aware of how low you will go in order to avoid the obvious. Just about this same time last year, before my elder mother died, people here on UD were sharing some of their Covid stories as the pandemic was rolling out. I mentioned that the assisted living facility where my mother was living had an outbreak and that my siblings and I had demanded that they test her immediately before we took her out of there to safety. Now, it would have never occurred to me (if the situation had been reversed) to use that as a means to attack someone. I mean, really, attacking someone expressing a real and tangible concern over the physical safety of their parent? But that didn’t stop you, did it, JVL? You were so eager to attack ID proponents that you actually used it as an opportunity to suggest that my siblings and I were cheating the facility with our demands. So no JVL, I already know your schtick. I don’t sweat people like you, and I am certainly not angry (I am sitting here eating a bowl of ice cream, listening to Leon Russel play the piano). You go ahead and keep attacking me in place of the substance, and I‘ll keep on pointing out the flaws in your position. I trust the readers. Upright BiPed
. #1155
You appeal to authority all the time in your posts.
Citing scientists, dates, papers, specific experiments and findings is not considered an appeal to authority in discussions of science, JVL; it is part of the normal course of communication. And I don’t just provide these cites and then refuse to enter into the details involved in the discussion. If you want to talk about the rate-independent nature of symbol vehicles, no problem. If you want to walk through the steps of Von Neumann’s logic, I’m all in. However, to merely say, as you do, that “others disagree with you” (without any willingness whatsoever to enter into details of the issues), and to do so, as you do, for the transparent purpose of avoiding the double-standard in your reasoning — that is indeed an appeal to authority. It is a defensive conversation-stopper, just as you intend it to be.
It is the case that there is no other hard physical evidence for your design argument. There is no outside evidence of a designer
Oh good grief. It is hard to believe that you don’t recognize how your double standard enters into your reasoning, but it may actually be the case that you don’t. So allow me to explain it to you. You came here and announced that there was no evidence of design in ID arguments. That position is patently false, so I took the time to lead you through the evidence you say doesn’t exist (specifically, the semiotic argument). Because of the nature of that evidence (being coherent, widely accepted, and historically accurate) you were unable to disagree with any of it. Indeed, you concurred with the each of the key observations that make up the design inference. You even asked to have some time to think about what you had been told, but eventually began the “others disagree” bit as a means to close off the conversation. You then jumped to another conversation and virtually the first thing out of your mouth (amazingly) was your apparent excitement over the design inference in SETI. You will notice that this is the snippet I keep re-posting each time you return to your attack on ID (as you did on Monday, which prompted this current exchange)
JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available.
When you say “because there is no plausible designer available” you are offering up a distinction that simply doesn’t exist. Does it really not occur to you that neither scenario has a “designer available” until evidence of that designer is discovered and confirmed? You shouldn’t need me to point this out to you. It is specifically the finding of encoded symbolic content that confirms (beyond any reasonable doubt) it is the product of an intelligence. Clearly, if a signal was received from outer space that contained encoded symbolic content in it, then you, like everyone else on the surface of the planet, would immediately (and quite correctly) infer the presence of a previously unknown intelligence. That is to say, the presence of encoded symbolic content is a universal correlate of intelligence. Do you see how that works, JVL? Before the confirmation of a universal correlate, there is no evidence of an intelligence in either scenario. After the confirmation of a universal correlate, the evidence of a previously unknown intelligence objectively exists in both scenarios. But that logical continuity is not how you treat the evidence. You treat the evidence with a gratuitous double standard. In the SETI scenario, encoded symbolic content is a universal correlate of intelligence. In the ID scenario, it isn’t. And it should come as no surprise that if encoded symbolic content is not a universal correlate of intelligence in the second scenario, then it can’t be that in the first scenario either. But does this logical inconsistency bother you? No, it serves your ideological purposes, and that is why you invoke it. You are a smart enough person, and I don’t really believe for a moment that you can’t see how you are applying a double standard. If you also have a fair sense of self-awareness, you may even recognize that you are doing it for purely non-scientific (ideological) reasons. So what does all this mean? It certainly means the same when you do it as it means when anyone else does it. You’ve seen a Periodic Table; you know without a doubt that Peirce’s triadic relationship (symbol/referent/interpretant) is a fundamental physical requirement to specify something in this lawfully determined universe. Not only does logic demand it, but it is a universal observation without a single exception recorded anywhere at anytime. You know without a doubt that John von Neumann predicted a high-capacity system of symbols and constraints as the fundamental requirement of autonomous open-ended self-replication. It is a matter of historical record. You know without a doubt that each of the key objects required to confirm von Neumann’s prediction were discovered one by one without exception (Crick, Brenner, Hoagland, Zamecnik, Nirenberg, etc). Nobel awards were handed out along the way. And you know that the entire resulting system has been carefully described in the literature using the language of physics, and additionally, that the only other system known to science that operates in the same way is that of human language – a universal correlate of intelligence. You knew all of this before you applied a double-standard between SETI and ID. Upright BiPed
Concealed Citizen LCD, Why would Yahweh tell Israelites to murder innocent Canaanite children and babies? (If you don’t believe that happened, you can ignore the question.)
:) You mean "Why would Yahweh tell Israelites to murder innocent Canaanite children and babies after has been waiting for 400 years for Canaanites to abandon child sacrifices and other evil practices?" 2nd,if moral law has no real repercussion that means moral law is useless and has no value. But ,strange enough, the moral law is very apreciated by atheists when teach to christians how imoral is their God. You can't make this up. You can't escape self refutation and implosion. Lieutenant Commander Data
KF
PLEASE LEAVE THIS THREAD, NOW. There will be no further warnings. KF
I’m new to this thread. Could someone point me to the comment, or comments, that led to this? count of crisco
Viola Lee: Hmmm. A topic and disagreement from other threads seems to have spilled over to this one. He's obsessed with anyone who has stood up to him. He keeps track of conversations from months, even years, ago. Like anyone else even cares or remembers. But Upright Biped never forgets or forgives. He's got a library of quotes and topics that he can bring out at whim in case one of his adversaries says something he disagrees with. Who spends that much time and effort keeping track of what someone says on this forum? It's a bit weird for sure. JVL
Upright Biped: This is a fallacious appeal to authority that (even if accepted) does absolutely nothing whatsoever to remove the double standard in your reasoning. Do you not understand this? You appeal to authority all the time in your posts. I have the audacity to disagree with you and point out when some of the authorities you quote also disagree with you. This is the actual product of your double standard. Do you not understand this? It is the case that there is no other hard physical evidence for your design argument. There is no outside evidence of a designer who was around . . . when exactly? Who did . . . .what exactly? You can't even specify your claims. Why don't you try at least to nail down your own hypotheses. Again, this is the pay dirt of your double standard. Do you not understand this? If you don’t understand this, then just say so. Your anger points to a lack of argument. As you once said, “If you want to quit, then quit”. Why should I? You keep saying the same things over and over and over again even after they've been addressed, albeit not to your liking. IF you want to have an open and honest dialogue then you're going to have to deal with people disagreeing with you. Why don't you take the opportunity to really listen to their objections and refine your own views? Could it be that your own views are fragile and rickety and liable to break given a certain amount of pressure? How do you explain your anger when you can't browbeat someone to your point of view? JVL
Hmmm. A topic and disagreement from other threads seems to have spilled over to this one. Viola Lee
.
I have tried to answer you many, many times.
That is utterly false. Your most substantive response to the double standard in your reasoning, to date is: “I don’t have a double standard.” Sep 2020.
The truth is that at least some of the experts ...
This is a fallacious appeal to authority that (even if accepted) does absolutely nothing whatsoever to remove the double standard in your reasoning. Do you not understand this?
Additionally, there is a massive lack of other evidence...
This is the actual product of your double standard. Do you not understand this?
You are asking for a high level of assumption...
Again, this is the pay dirt of your double standard. Do you not understand this? If you don’t understand this, then just say so.
Can you let it go now...
You mean: Can’t I just stay here and attack ID with flawed reasoning without having to defend the things I say! No, JVL, you can’t. As you once said, “If you want to quit, then quit”. Upright BiPed
Concealed Citizen: It’s always amusing to me when someone builds a fire and then whines when it gets too hot. Well exactly. Welcome to Uncommon Descent. Your transgression might get written down on your permanent record. Let me just say to Kairosfocus in all honesty: Please allow for real, honest discussion of the issues you and others bring up. That would be a real beacon of support and encouragement of free thought and a place where ideas of all kinds can be brought up and discussed. Surely that is a very, very good thing. Yes? JVL
KF: PLEASE LEAVE THIS THREAD, NOW. There will be no further warnings. KF Um, okay. It's always amusing to me when someone builds a fire and then whines when it gets too hot. I win. Concealed Citizen
Upright Biped: *crickets* I have tried to answer you many, many times. You don't like my answers so you continue to deny that I have tried. The truth is that at least some of the experts in symbolic encoded content have NOT agreed with you that that means some kind of design was required in the development of DNA. You continually refuse to accept that you might be wrong in that. Additionally, there is a massive lack of other evidence that there was some kind of intelligent designer around . . . when? Who did . . . what exactly? You are asking for a high level of assumption with no evidence or academic support. Excuse me for not agreeing with you. Can you let it go now or are you just going to keep dogging me like some kind of spurned lover? I have no authority or standing, why do you care so much? Something is weird with you. Perhaps you should think about that. JVL
. 1147 Then you must mean ”like the”. Upright BiPed
Kairosfocus: VL (attn JVL), the views of allegedly most have no more weight than those of one with warrant. You have long since been directed to where you may ponder why there is a difference of views, with what degree of warrant. And we disagree with you and have stated so time and time again. You keep insisting that disagreeing with you is tantamount to denying reality. Is your position falsifiable? Is it possible to disagree with you and be taken seriously? You have refused to engage such, starting with that thread. That is not true. We just disagreed with you. You seem to be saying that disagreeing is the same as not engaging. I won’t even bother with trying to specifically refute your attempt to insinuate that a principled, factually founded view on a matter is the moral equivalent of racism. That alone disqualifies your further comments on the matter from serious consideration. If the shoe fits . . . I now state, I am for abundant cause gavelling the distraction and suggest that you would be well advised to reconsider the immoral equivalency you have tried to suggest. Oh dear, the head master is calling us to task for asking questions and thinking for ourselves. What are we to do now? Agree with him so that we can stay in his good graces or stand up for what we think is right and good and well founded. March to the dictated melody or fine our own tune . . . what would a free thinker do? What would someone who wanted to stand up for free will and free thought do? JVL
re 1145: No, UB, I don't think that is implied by anything KF said. Viola Lee
.
JVL: It would be easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
JVL: No designer -> no design. What evidence (aside from the contested design) is there that there was an intelligent designer present UB: You’ve been given the evidence and have been completely unable to show that the evidence is anything but 100% coherent and accurate — i.e. it is well-documented in the literature via a) recorded predictions, b) experimental confirmations, and c) secondary physical analysis. These observations are not only universal and uncontroversial, but you have already acknowledged their scientific and historical verity. And it is not merely the factual presence of the observations themselves that you agree with, but also (and in particular) the logic of drawing a design inference from those specific observations. You, in fact, do it yourself without hesitation; that is, you posit a previously unknown intelligence when and if these specific observations are confirmed to exist, as they already are in biology. So, on the one hand you want to believe you are a rational person who “believes in science” and believes in the power of methodical observation. But yet on the other hand, if you actually allowed yourself to do so, then you would be forced to acknowledge something you simply don’t want to concede. You then publicly manage this glowing contradiction by applying a gratuitous double standard to the evidence — which is every bit as obvious and unmistakable as the contradiction it is intended to conceal. This is a real problem for you, and you have thus far used several unscrupulous tactics (which can be listed here, if need be) in an attempt to deflect attention away from the problem. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JVL, the mechanism required to organize the origin of life is well known. The physical conditions of that mechanism are well-documented in the literature, and have been explained to you on multiple occasions. It is a matter of historical record that the mechanism was first predicted to exist through logical analysis, and subsequently confirmed through experimental result. The critical observations are not even controversial. When confronted with these facts, you respond with a clear intent to avoid the conversation and protect your worldview from science and reason. You accomplish this protectionist sleight-of-hand through the application of flawed reasoning, which you then refuse to address. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available
*crickets* Upright BiPed
. Kairos, you view yourself as “inferior”? Now, that is news. Upright BiPed
KF, I do believe that your stand on same-sex relationships and the out-dated (but still prevalent in some places) idea that black people are inferior are both morally wrong. Both deny full status to people based on qualities that are irrelevant to their humanity. Viola Lee
VL (attn JVL), the views of allegedly most have no more weight than those of one with warrant. You have long since been directed to where you may ponder why there is a difference of views, with what degree of warrant. You have refused to engage such, starting with that thread. (I took time to further link above, but will not waste time further by re-linking such; as something else is prior that tells decisively against your attitude as well as argument.) I won't even bother with trying to specifically refute your attempt to insinuate that a principled, factually founded view on a matter is the moral equivalent of racism. That alone disqualifies your further comments on the matter from serious consideration. I now state, I am for abundant cause gavelling the distraction and suggest that you would be well advised to reconsider the immoral equivalency you have tried to suggest. KF kairosfocus
Thanks, JVL. Viola Lee
Viola Lee: post 1138 Hear, hear! Well stated. Not that it's going to matter at all. It would be easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle. JVL
And many people consider your position on same-sex relationships as out-dated as thinking "negroes inferior." (And sadly, there are still those who believe that the latter is true, also.) But I notice that you don't respond to the substance of my post and the way it directly addresses the topic of the thread as stated by you in the title and first paragraph. Using an example is a very reasonable way to address the specifics of an abstract issue, but I also addressed the abstract issue itself. So I stand by what I wrote. P.S. This is relevant.
TOKYO (Reuters) - A Japanese court ruled on Wednesday that not allowing same-sex couples to get married is "unconstitutional," setting a precedent in the only G7 nation not to fully recognise same-sex partnership.
Viola Lee
VL, you know full well that you have chosen to pull a thread off track with a red herring distractor. You were there when there was a thread dealing with your hobby horse. As for, most people think one way or another, most people a generation ago held different opinions on any number of topics including ones freighted with justice, ethics and the like. For example, would, "most people consider negroes inferior" or the like suffice to prove anything? There is after all such a thing as a march of manipulated folly, and there is a crooked yardstick effect, which leads to the need for plumb lines to set them straight. This thread is about plumb lines antecedent to particular states, cultures, legal opinions etc, precisely to see to getting the mess we have been making of our civilisation straight. The issue is, we have self-evident first duties that though seemingly abstract have capability to guide us and have an historic record of leading to sound reformation. The distraction will stop. Now. KF kairosfocus
KF writes, "VL I AM LOOKING STRAIGHT AT YOU AND NAMING YOU IN THE FULL PARLIAMENTARY SENSE. YOU CHOSE TO TRY TO PULL THE THREAD OFF TRACK ABOVE." The title of this thread is "Should We Recognise That “Laws Of Nature” Extend To Laws Of Our Human Nature? (Which, Would Then Frame Civil Law.)" The first paragraph says, "The focal topic asks us whether our civil law is effectively an accident of power balances, or else, could it be accountable to a built in law that pivots on first duties coeval with our humanity." My answer to the OP question and the "else" part of the second question is No. However, I also think your second question presents a false dichotomy: civil law is also not an "accident" of power balances. Human beings are rational, moral, and free-willed creatures (but not for the reasons and in the ways you claim). We have to assess the sometimes very messy real world concerning all sorts of issues, and well-meaning and equally well-qualified people often come to different opinions about things. There are no "correct" answers: people have to hammer it out among themselves how they want their society to be structured. Yes, power and wealth enter into this, but not exclusively, and so does learning and general socialization (both issues mentioned by others during this thread). The civil law we build is not an "accident": rather it the cultural consequence of the actions of people advocating, in whatever ways they can, for what they believe is best for themselves and society in general. A key way in which your philosophy fails is that you insist that in cases of disagreement about moral issues, one party is correctly utilizing "natural law", "right reason", etc., and that the others are defective, as aptly illustrated by your "crooked yardstick" metaphor. So when a real-world situation is brought up, you don't know how to respond other than to fall back, again and again, on abstract philosophy. That is why it is important, and relevant to the OP, to bring up issues which highlight this deficiency. You consider same-sex issues as "sewer" issues. That does nothing other than to highlight how what you think are "natural laws" issues are really just your personal emotional reactions to something you can't fathom: for all your talk about neighborliness, and conscience, and justice, and fairness, you can't in fact empathize with the humanity of people who have different sexual orientations than what you think is correct, nor with all of us who support their desires to be seen and treated as full-fledged fellow citizens and human beings. So I am not "pulling the thread off track." I'm trying to make the thread continue down the track that you refuse to take: one the questions the premises and conclusions you state in your OP. If you ask questions, you need to be prepared for people to answer. The majority of the people in this country support, to various degrees, same-sex relationships, including sexual, and marriage. You don't: you think it's a sign of the decay of civilization. Fine: have your opinion, advocate for your position, gives reasons why you hold it. But don't think that claiming that some proper use of "right reason" gives your opinion some special credence that those of us who disagree with you don't have. Viola Lee
Later, RW . . . kairosfocus
KF, I didn't want you to miss my 1044 and 1048 above. I'm hoping I finally understand you on the "First Duty" thing there. William J Murray
WJM, 1034, as an example: >>When KF says that everything I say or do implies a “First Duty,”>> 1: Your "you're wrong" is a capital example of appealing to first duties of reason, inescapably. This points to their antecedent, self evident character. 2: That is, ordinary folks just routinely use these appeals in thinking, arguing, quarrelling, deciding. Objectors, to try to have rhetorical traction, cannot avoid same. Those who err by trying to prove what is at the root of proof find the appeals embedded in not only their proofs but the very structure of proving and why we seek proofs. 3: We could imagine we can abandon rationality but that is absurd. The sound path is to recognise that these are naturally evident, inescapable antecedents of responsible, rational freedom. Hence, FIRST duties of reason. 4: They frame a built-in law that is then the basis for civil law, if it is to be legitimate, pivoting on justice, due balance of rights, freedoms, duties. >>what I infer is that a duty is necessarily to a goal.>> 5: Obviously, responsible reason by creatures that are finite, fallible, morally struggling, prone to be stubborn and ill willed etc. Where, responsible reason prizes truth, soundness, prudence, justice etc. 6: Truth being accuracy to entities and states of affairs of reality. Those who doubt the priority of truth reveal a disconnect from reality. >> But what is “the goal” of employing logic?>> 7: To get a reliable grasp on what is truthful, rightly reasoned out, prudent, just. Yes, our long term thriving is dependent on these being the prevailing pattern. Those who reject or deride and dismiss our thriving, show themselves to be misanthropes. >>Fundamental logical principles are not a “goal;” >> 8: We are not primarily dealing with principles of logic but duties of right reason, which soundly uses logic towards reliable grasping of what is true, well thought through, prudent, just, etc. The principles of logic are guidelines in such thinking, helping us avert or correct errors. >>there are the necessary, inescapable foundation of how one must pursue any goal.>> 9: We need to think clearly, accurately, reliably to attain a goal, we need good goals compatible with human thriving to rise above ruinous misuse of rationality that frustrates the good and perverts thought, speech, action towards folly, chaos, ruin. As is in manifest progress today. 10: Of course, I just gave an example of what evil is. >>To say that my “duty” is to “use logic properly” is only valid if “using logic properly” is my goal;>> 11: No, using logic properly is an instrument towards the naturally evident, proper goals of thriving sustainably as opposed to ruin: truth, clarity, sound thinking, prudence, justice etc. >> to say it is an inescapable primary goal “for all sentient creatures”>> 12: I have spoken to contingent, error-prone, finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often confused, stubborn and ill-willed creatures that nevertheless have capability to think soundly. >> is obviously false. Most people are not trying to employ “right reason;” they’re just using whatever they use of it in an effort to achieve whatever goal they have.>> 13: Is vs ought again, our foibles, flaws and struggles may reveal much on us and where we end up -- often second or third best or worse, they don't say one thing directly about where we should have gone instead. Save, learn from our example of marches of folly. >> It’s a means to an end, not the end itself.>> 14: principles of logic are primaries of that discipline. We are here addressing why bother with what is an admittedly difficult struggle, to think straight in a too often tangled up crooked world. Thus, duty to principles of logic and to surrounding issues of right reason. These point to prudence, including warrant. Epistemic sense. >>To use any tools to achieve any goal in any coherent manner is to employ free will to imagine the potential goals and then try to instantiate those goals. This defines oughts for us.>> 15: First duties sit in judgement on goals chosen. A Hitler or a Stalin or a Mao exemplify evil goals that should not have been chosen. >>An inescapable aspect of Free Will is preference. All decisions ultimately boil down to preference, either in the direct choice or in the way we make choices, even if it is flipping a coin.>> 16: As I noted, preference is ambiguous. In one sense, it is trivial as what is chosen is automatically what is "preferred." In the other relevant sense, our inclinations, we are often duty bound to do what we do not prefer to do. 17: Preference does not overthrow first duties or the many subsidiary duties. >> Preference is also an inescapable aspect of enjoyment;>> 18: My homeland has a saying: what sweet nanny goat mouth, run 'im belly. What is pleasant at the first may have damaging, destructive consequences so we must for example learn to have a taste for sound eating etc. The same extends across life. >> our scale of enjoyment is naturally, inescapable evaluated via preference, regardless of how one sorts and organizes the many different forms of enjoyment.>> 19: Preferences, like many other things, need to be disciplined and shaped by duties, prudence, health, the due balance of rights, freedoms, duties etc. >>Thus, Free Will is inescapably used to pursue the enjoyments we prefer,>> 20: Freedom is responsible, rational and so duty-bound. We can choose to do the evil, the wrong, the unsound, the unhealthy, the unwise, the foolish, the evil etc, we may prefer such but we OUGHT not to do such. Enjoyment is not sufficient justification, as the case of the kidnapped, sexually tortured murdered child I have pointed to teaches. >>however we define, organize or prioritize them. That is the fundamental nature of all sentient creatures which cannot be avoided.>> 21: You are using the ambiguities of the term and need to reckon with the balances noted. Yet again. >>There is only one category of goals that can be said to be fundamental to all goals and thus, in any significant meaning of the term, be the only “first duty.” The first and, ultimately, only duty a sentient being can be said to have, is to enjoyment.>> 22: Deeply fallacious for reasons as noted. Freedom is not licence or self indulgence. KF kairosfocus
WJM, after I get a cat nap and deal with RW developments on the plate, I had to go play fireman above. KF kairosfocus
Seversky, the lesson of history is, first, we refuse to learn from history, which explains why THERE IS NO TRULY STABLE POLITICAL SYSTEM. Autocracy starts the ball rolling, but there is an overload as discussed in Exodus 18 on a live case. This leads to oligarchy, thence the matter of lawfulness. Anarchy is simply a foil, it is intolerable. Power tends to corrupt, power without adequate accountability corrupts utterly, so the natural state of government is lawless oligarchy and nihilistic tyranny. So there is a struggle to stabilise oligarchy towards lawfulness, undermined by the addictive, corrupting nature of unaccountable power. No, it is not RELIGIOUS oligarchy, it is oligarchy and the addiction of power. This is intolerable and leads to bloody upheavals. In the end a monarchy with at least a body of widely accepted law -- Corpus Juris and the derived Code Napoleon on one side, British Common Law on the other, Sharia etc is in another civilisation -- seemed to be the best of bad options. Recall, ever since Athens committed politically driven geostrategic suicide, democracy was discredited with Ship of State the epitaph. Then came 1914 and the catastrophe that discredited monarchy. Now, backed by the rise of nukes to back chemicals, bioweapons and bombers as well as missiles. Don't overlook agit prop, colour revolution, 4th gen shadow wars and terrorism. So, up until the printing revolution, rise of mass literacy with linked ethics [re-]formation and global trade, there was no economic and cultural basis for any credible return to democratisation. Autocracy cannot work, anarchy is why there is a willingness to have civil society, even with oligarchy prone to lawless oligarchy. What sort of oligarchy was the real question. Lawful if possible, deal with lawlessness when it took over. This is not a perfect world. The cumulative effects of the printing revolution, the ferment around the reformation, etc led to the breakthrough to constitutional democracy buttressed by the cultural strength of gospel ethics and natural law thinking reformed Christendom. Yes, I know, in their maddened rage, the new atheists and assorted new radicals of cultural marxist bent want to smash Christendom and its legacy utterly. They either don't realise what this points to; o,r on the part of key power brokers, they intend to be the oligarchs in charge. our civilisation is on a voyage of folly, playing with fire, heedless to sobering lessons of history. For the US, 4th gen civil war has been in progress since about 2016-17, and now looks likely to spiral up the violence scale, pivoting on a Reichstag fire incident and attempts to ruthlessly exploit it riding on a McFaul colour-culture revolution push. We live in sadly interesting times. That's why I am calling us back to plumb line issues, the evident built in law that is coeval with our rational, responsible, significantly free humanity. KF kairosfocus
PS: Note the chart on an alternative political spectrum, which leads the OP. kairosfocus
Jerry, democracies have a great virtue, freedom. Freedom easily becomes licence, which is ruinous. That is why democracies need strong buttressing from the culture, which needs to be sound. Historically, Athenian democracy failed so badly that it discredited democracy for 2,000+ years; it was the results of the printing revolution, the ferment over the Reformation and the deepening effect of democratisation joined to gospel ethics driven moral-cultural progress that opened up new constitutional space between 1776 - 79, constitutional democracy of republican character, building on a line of thinking from Duplessis-Mornay et al in Vindiciae contra Tyrannos 1579, and the Dutch Declaration of 1581, with onward influences surrounding the Glorious Revolution, including esp. Locke and Rutherford, then Blackstone. The end of democracy implies, reversion to lawless oligarchy, now in obvious progress in the USA, with a Reichstag fire issue on the table. We refuse to learn from history, long run we are insane collectively on politics. KF kairosfocus
NOTICE: FOLKS, THE OH WHAT ABOUT THIS AND THAT RIFF ON DISTRACTIVE SIDE ISSUES HAS GONE ON IN THE FACE OF MY STRONG STATEMENT THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO PULL THE DISCUSSION OFF TRACK. IT IS A STRONG SIGN THAT OBJECTORS HAVE LOST THE EXCHANGE ON SUBSTANTIAL MERITS AND NOW WISH TO PULL THE TRIFECTA FALLACY: RED HERRING DISTRACTORS, LED AWAY TO STRAWMAN CARICATURES SOAKED IN AD HOMINEMS AND SET ALIGHT TO CREATE A TOXIC CONFUSING CLOUD OF NEEDLESS POLARISATION. PRECISELY, BECAUSE THE SUBSTANTIAL MATTER GOES WHERE THEY DO NOT WANT TO GO. THERE WAS ALREADY A UD THREAD THAT DEALT WITH THE FASHIONABLE SEXUALLY TINGED PERVERSITIES OF THE DAY [HERE IS A CORRECTIVE BOOK ON THE CORE ISSUES] AND THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO ALLOW THREAD AFTER THREAD TO BE DRAGGED OFF INTO THE SEWER OF EVER MORE BIZARRE PSYCHO-SEXUAL PATHOLOGIES TRIGGERED BY THE CROOKED YARDSTICK EFFECT. THE CHOICE IS, RETURN TO RESPONSIBLE ON TOPIC DISCUSSION OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION, WHICH WILL OF COURSE BE DECRIED AS CENSORSHIP. GIVEN THAT DILEMMA I WILL PICK THE LATTER EVERY TIME. THERE IS ENOUGH WARNING ON THE TABLE AT THIS POINT, AND VL I AM LOOKING STRAIGHT AT YOU AND NAMING YOU IN THE FULL PARLIAMENTARY SENSE. YOU CHOSE TO TRY TO PULL THE THREAD OFF TRACK ABOVE. GEM OF TKI, THREAD OWNER kairosfocus
CC, you have been warned, pointed to where you can get serious corrective information (were the village atheist distractor you raise a genuine concern), and more. You are insistent on multiplying toxic red herring distractors; which BTW is an obvious rhetorical sign of defeat on substantial merits. That's enough, given the general problem of Internet trollery. PLEASE LEAVE THIS THREAD, NOW. There will be no further warnings. KF kairosfocus
VL, that you seemingly imagine the built-in complementarity of two sexes at the pivot of reproduction and lifelong pair bonding as context for raising a sound next generation is an" ivory tower" impractical distinction tells us all we need to know about crooked yardstick effects and how what is straight can never fit with crookedness. Which, shows that inducing a critical mass of people to swallow crooked yardsticks is the "highest" form of the radical agit prop strategist's manipulative art. For, it locks in the error and locks out sound correction. Indeed, as one particular crookedness will not match other crooked forms, it even locks in a particular indoctrination too. Hence, the cult deprogramming challenge of breaking the lock-in of the programming (and yes, I have about 20 years experience on that front too, part of what I am bringing to the table). Even, when what is straight comes from a plumb line, which is naturally straight and upright. (The plumb line metaphor of course comes from old building practice and relates to things that are naturally evident and/or even fully self-evident.) You have inadvertently shown why the restoration of Cicero's natural law thinking is vital to saving our civilisation. KF kairosfocus
Acartia SA2:
The bottom line is, we should not erect barriers to people’s happiness unless they can be shown to cause harm. Love and commitment can never cause harm.
So then we should allow all types of marriage. Most likely have to change the meaning of the word "harm" as some people like bondage and pain. ET
There isn’t any justification for allowing same-sex marriage. We are still waiting on that. JVL:
So that same-sex couples can enjoy the same civil liberties and benefits of laws that heterosexual couples enjoy: easier inheritance and power of attorney rules (in the case of a traffic accident this can be really important), more legal protections (consider the rule that a spouse is not compelled to testify against their spouse), more abilities to challenge biased and prejudiced individuals, immediate grant of favourable tax rules (in some countries anyway), more chance to be portrayed as non-sinful . . . the benefits are many and varied. You have to be purposely prejudice not to be able to think of some yourself.
None of that requires marriage. You are grasping at straws. ET
re 1123: Many children suffer from short-lived marriages where the children are then raised by a single mother; parents who fight all the time but stay together "for the sake of the children"; parents in poverty, or with alcohol problems, or lack of education; etc.. A proper study of this subject would certainly have to look at a number of situations to compare with families with two same-sex parents, and then consider the whole range of variables that lead to children having difficult childhoods in some way. For instance, the 2010 census shows that about 2/3 of families have two parents, and the other third are mostly single moms. Furthermore, the two parent families included blended families (I don't know the percent) where the parents are not the original married birth parents. (Source: US 2010 Census) This is just one of many statistics that might bear on analyzing what kind of living arrangements are good for children in respect to the adults in their household. Viola Lee
Seversky “ I couldn’t have put it better myself.” Thank you. Steve Alten2
RavenT/1118
Whenever people ask me “who gets harmed anything outside proper marriage” The answer is almost exclusively “the children”.
For context, how many children are abused by or die at the hands of parents in a so-called "proper marriage"? Seversky
Jerry/1117
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1371277298066812931.html Is the end near?
Who knows? I did notice that the list of civilizations given whose periods of ascendancy met the criteria of the Tytler cycle were mostly autocracies or oligarchies, which suggests we still have a long way to go before we find a system of government which is not vulnerable to human failings. Maybe we need to hand over responsibility to some form of AI since we don't seem to be very good at it. Seversky
Steve Alten2/1116
The bottom line is, we should not erect barriers to people’s happiness unless they can be shown to cause harm. Love and commitment can never cause harm.
I couldn't have put it better myself. Seversky
LCD, Why would Yahweh tell Israelites to murder innocent Canaanite children and babies? (If you don't believe that happened, you can ignore the question.) Concealed Citizen
Concealed Citizen if Yahweh told Hitler to kill Jews (for God’s hidden purposes, whatever they may be), would that be okay? Yes or no?
:)) Why would do Yahweh such a thing? I thought Yahweh talk with prophets, holy men? Was Hitler a prophet? Try again. ;) Lieutenant Commander Data
JVL @ 1111 Whenever people ask me "who gets harmed anything outside proper marriage" The answer is almost exclusively "the children". Here is a good place to start. Now if they want to do their business by themselves, I have nothing to say about it. RavenT
Kf, add to your reading list https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1371277298066812931.html Is the end near? jerry
Seversky, good point. It seems to me that in the sixties, people took offence to inter-racial marriage, raising slippery-slope and civilization ending arguments. Neither of which materialized. The bottom line is, we should not erect barriers to people’s happiness unless they can be shown to cause harm. Love and commitment can never cause harm. Steve Alten2
Same sex marriage clearly offends some but causing offense is not the same as causing harm. Nor is it sufficient reason for prohibiting the speech or action that causes offense, if it were then there is much here and in other similar online venues that causes me offense but I don't believe that they should be banned just because they are offensive to me. Seversky
JVL “ What none of the detractors here have been able to demonstrate is how allowing same-sex marriage harms anyone.” I guess it could be argued that it does harm to homosexual people. But that can only be true if you take the Christian opinion that homosexuality is a sin and it can prevent your entry into heaven. But then you would have to admit that your objection is religiously based. Steve Alten2
Over on talk.origins some transwoman queer, announced it's upcoming marriage to another transwoman queer. I wonder if they will be having children. Probably. That brings to mind that evolutionist on talk.origins, Mitchell Coffey, who was advocating for acceptance of incest. And that other evolutionist of talk.origins from yesteryear, Matt Silberstein, who once had a tagline about having sex with a 14 year old girl. Evolutionist morality is just obviously a total cesspool. It's because the idea of emotions, and the concept of personal opinion, are inherently creationist ideas. On the intellectual level, evolutionists have no clue whatsoever anymore, about anything to do with emotions, morality. They are just going by intuition, and basic instinct. mohammadnursyamsu
I looked at the previous comment and it was
1111
About a thousand too many. jerry
ET: There isn’t any justification for allowing same-sex marriage. We are still waiting on that. So that same-sex couples can enjoy the same civil liberties and benefits of laws that heterosexual couples enjoy: easier inheritance and power of attorney rules (in the case of a traffic accident this can be really important), more legal protections (consider the rule that a spouse is not compelled to testify against their spouse), more abilities to challenge biased and prejudiced individuals, immediate grant of favourable tax rules (in some countries anyway), more chance to be portrayed as non-sinful . . . the benefits are many and varied. You have to be purposely prejudice not to be able to think of some yourself. What none of the detractors here have been able to demonstrate is how allowing same-sex marriage harms anyone. I'm not talking about some theological or philosophical stance; please state clearly and concisely how allowing same-sex marriage harms you personally. If no one can think of such a reason then . . . . JVL
Kairosfocus: evident purpose is key to oughtness, and often that is naturally evident; including the function of our two sexes, associated genitalia and organs of elimination. OH, so it's anal sex that bothers you? So, you assume that all homosexual men practice anal sex? You are aware that lots of heterosexual, child-producing, Christian, married couples practice anal sex. You must know that. Unless, you are wilfully ignorant. I know, you won't discuss it but I'm starting to figure out what bothers you. Does that mean that lesbians are okay since they've not got the . . . gear to practice anal sex? JVL
At 1089 WJM complimented my closing sentence in a post to KF: "You don’t want to discuss these things because they highlight how your philosophy is impotent once it leaves the ivory tower." WJM went on to to say that "At the end of the day, those that have the capacity and will to do so, make the rules and run any society" I agree that from a realpolitik point of view, he is correct. However, I am more interested in how people make moral judgments, and how we live with the fact that different people have different perspectives. kf's remark at 1096 highlights the problem:
the point of the recognition of our built in nature is that there are realities that are not determined by society, which includes key rights and our fundamental nature, which happens to include the complementarity of the two opposite sexes, whatever fashion of the times conscious theologians may wish to say.
First, his "ivory tower" dichotomy between two opposite sexes denies reality: the biology and psychology of people varies tremendously, and as other have mentioned, it's all equally natural to the people involved. And when I mention that the Evangelical Lutheran Church accepts same-sex relationships and marriage, he dismisses them as theologians following the fashion of the times, not as religious people whose claims to judgment are equal to the Catholic church. So in actuality "natural law" and the use of "right reason" appear to be equivalent to the individual views of the people invoking them, and the argument that they are somehow connected to some natural truths is just a rationalization for trying to give one's views some special credence that one denies others. Viola Lee
CC, the record is there above. KF PS: It seems I had to update to web archive in reply to Evil Bible dot com, a yardstick reference of Internet form village atheist rhetoric -- and yes, others sometimes make use of that rhetoric, not advisable. See https://web.archive.org/web/20160305071200/http://www.truefreethinker.com/evilbiblecom kairosfocus
The naturalistic fallacy, or is / ought fallacy, fails when it is considered that emotions exist. If it is said love exists, then what ought, and ought not, automatically follow from that. I like to get to the top of the mountain. Therefore I ought to do what get's me to the top, and ought not to do, what leads me away from the top. The ougts, and ought nots follow from acknowledging the existence of the love for getting to the top. Correctly understood, the existence of this love is a matter of chosen opinion. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / fact Choices are made out of emotion, such as love, therefore emotions belong in category number 1. Therefore love can only be identified with a chosen opinion. So someone saying they like to get to the top of the mountain, it does not prove this love for going to the top exists. Same as it does not prove God exists, by saying, I believe in God. Evolutionists have thrown out creationism, and consequently categorized emotions, such as love, as a material and factual thing. That is why natural selection theory is actually social darwinist ideology which says that one ought to survive and reproduce. The naturalistic fallacy breaks down. But then social darwinism not a proper ideology, because in a proper ideology what is good, loving and beautiful is noted as subjective. While social darwinism asserts these things as fact. So it is kind of an ideology, but really it is more of a total mess. mohammadnursyamsu
KF: CC, no, there ARE questions that are self-defeating and discrediting. Publicly doubting and challenging the evil of the most notorious criminal in history is of that order. I did no such thing. The fact that you and I accept the evil of Hitler's actions is precisely why my question is useful in probing your philosophy. It's an extreme test. Hitler's actions were deplorable and evil. So was the Israelite's (alleged) murder of children and babies. The only difference, apparently, is that in one case (assuming the story is true) your God commanded it, which therefore made the Israelites duty bound to murder the babies. Yes or no? You apparently can't look that square in the face with regards to your "duty" philosophizing. So, why don't you just come clean, and state simply that "whatever God commands, we are duty bound to obey, even if it means murdering innocent babies" ? That would be honest. Then we could move on to if God really demanded such a thing. PS: Remarks about cutting throats are also well beyond the pale and raise very troubling issues. Running a sword through an innocent Canaanite baby is beyond the pale and very troubling. The fact that you seem to accept the Israelites doing that as a good thing which they were duty bound to obey is very troubling indeed. But that's your duty, right? At any rate, you're ripping a statement from its context. You know that's not all I said. If you wouldn't defend your own life, I feel sorry for you. Concealed Citizen
WJM, Busy, but I will pause: >>At the end of the day, those that have the capacity and will to do so, make the rules and run any society>> 1: Might and/or manipulation makes "right" is another way to say, nihilisn, here via lawless oligarchy. 2: The reforms of the past 400 years were precisely a breaking of capability to impose lawless oligarchy. However, such is inherently unstable and requires civilisational consensus . . . no prizes for guessing why it is being deliberately undermined. >> regardless of any constitution, laws, history, conscience, reasoning, etc.;>> 3: Actually, accountability before law, parliament, sound courts and people has been a key check. Ponder Watergate. >>and the people obey and follow only to the degree that they agree with>> 4: Key cultural consensus, which is being deliberately eroded. Note the alternative political spectrum I have been discussing. >>or cannot resist or avoid.>> 5: Oh, constitutional democracy butressed by a civilisation consensus undergirded by natural law and gospel ethics, we will only appreciate you from the foot of the cliff of tyranny once you have collapsed. >> This is what actually happens outside of the ivory tower.>> 6: Note the history implicit in that alternative spectrum. >> People of will and capacity will always rise to power and use that power for their own ends regardless of how one structures the system of power.>> 7: But in the lawful state are restrained by accountability. The ongoing disintegration is liable to have consequences beyond the nightmares of those who chafe at the restraints they despise. KF kairosfocus
Viola:
If you and your religion want to consider homosexuality immoral, that is your choice, but that is not justification for legally denying same-sex marriage.
There isn't any justification for allowing same-sex marriage. We are still waiting on that. ET
Mo:
There is only one really important issue in creationism / intelligent design vs evolution.
Neither ID nor Creation deny that evolution occurs. So there isn't any "creationism / intelligent design vs evolution". ET
CC:
You biased, arbitrary list seems to imply that homosexuals are on par with murderers, rapists and bullies. Is this what you intend?
Clearly you don't have a clue. My list shows that people doing what is natural to them doesn't make it right. I never said that homosexuality is bad. Clearly you have issues and should seek professional help ET
JVL, there already was a thread on the subject. The fallacy of appealing to the is to address the ought fails to recognise the issue of moral challenge. For example, murder, rape, kidnapping or debt bonding into slavery, lawless oligarchy and more are ages long, and still continue today. Yes, even slavery still continues. For a long time, there was mass or at least critical mass support for many practices that are dubious or worse; hence the hardness of hearts issue and the matter of sound reformation. That presence or support etc does not make such things lawful. WJM is right that evident purpose is key to oughtness, and often that is naturally evident; including the function of our two sexes, associated genitalia and organs of elimination. Again, enough has been said on such side tracks. KF kairosfocus
CC, no, there ARE questions that are self-defeating and discrediting. Publicly doubting and challenging the evil of the most notorious criminal in history is of that order. For the same reason that it is self-evidently evil to kidnap, bind, sexually torture and murder a young child on the way home from school. KF PS: Remarks about cutting throats are also well beyond the pale and raise very troubling issues. kairosfocus
I imagine that some millionaire who pays for the uncommon descent operation, is having this same "manifesto" posted time, and time and again. It is too much, and it is not enough. Too much for good advice, and too little in comparison to bona fide religion. And it is all besides the point. There is only one really important issue in creationism / intelligent design vs evolution. And that issue is the concept of personal opinion (like opinion on beauty). By far this is the most important issue, because of the impact on the individual and society. The truth is, the concept of personal opinion is an inherently creationist concept. Throwing out creationism means not just to throw out belief in God as being the creator, it means to destroy subjectivity in general. To throw out beauty, as well as ugliness, throw out love and hate, good and evil, all subjectivity depends on creationism. The creationist conceptual scheme: 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / fact Where the concept of opinion is validated in category 1, and the concept of fact is validated in category 2. Academics wants to apply the following conceptual schem: 1 material / fact 2. see 1 In category number 1 of the creationist conceptual scheme, is God, but also emotions, feelings, personal charcacter. But this category has been entirely thrown out in academics. So now you have loads and loads of people on facebook who assert that emotions can be measured in the brain. They classify emotions as material / factual, because material / fact is all they understand. No kidding, I had some evolutionist write to me that he could only know if his parents loved him, by measuring their brain with an mri. Untill then, he would just have to take their word for it. The sense is disappearing in society, to be courtous, kind, merciful, in choosing a judgement on what emotions are in people's heart, or what their personal character is. That sense is replaced by an emotionless calculating and measuring attitude, measuring the emotions and personal character. It is catastrophic for individuals and society. When creationism is thrown out, it means that people don't have any intellectual understanding of how a personal opinion is formed. People are left only with their intuitive understanding of personal opinions, and have no guidance from their intellect in forming personal opinions. Consequently they end up making bad personal opinions. "Bad" in my opinion of it. But also more objectively bad as in making logic errors of confusing matters of opinion, with matters of fact. My opinion about it is that every creationist, intelligent design theorist, should make the concept of personal opinion their number 1 issue for societal impact of creationism / intelligent design vs evolution. I have to say, that I am disappointed to see that creationists are just as well fact obsessed, as evolutionists are. Ignoring the concept of personal opinion. http://www.creationwiki.org/Creationist_Philosophy mohammadnursyamsu
Kairosfocus: which happens to include the complementarity of the two opposite sexes, whatever fashion of the times conscious theologians may wish to say. I don't think homosexuality is a recent phenomena; clearly it was around and common during the time Leviticus was written or there wouldn't be an injunction against it. Well, for men 'lying' with other men. It doesn't say anything about women 'lying' with other women . . . maybe that's okay then? JVL
CC: if you were serious I'm very serious. I suggest you cease the mind reading attempts. You're not good at it. (Most people aren't.) you would first walk back your sez who regarding Hitler, that disqualifies and discredits your further rhetorical stunts. Um, no, perfectly reasonable questions put to your philosophy to see what kind of an answer you will provide based on said philosophy. Philosophical views are tested with specifics. Sometimes that can get uncomfortable. You apparently can't handle it. Okay then. rhetorical stunts. That's not my intent. Do all questions you don't like qualify as a rhetorical stunts? This is not a site for discussion of village atheist rhetoric I'm not an atheist. And none of my questions even came close to "atheist rhetoric", whatever that is. Either your philosophy can consistently provide answers to questions placed to it, or it can't. Your statements of discomfort at the questions are not answers. Concealed Citizen
I have already pointed out that I am gavelling the side track into toxic distractions, Please do not require me to take stronger actions. And I guess I have to note: SA2 and VL, the point of the recognition of our built in nature is that there are realities that are not determined by society, which includes key rights and our fundamental nature, which happens to include the complementarity of the two opposite sexes, whatever fashion of the times conscious theologians may wish to say. CC, if you were serious, you would first walk back your sez who regarding Hitler, that disqualifies and discredits your further rhetorical stunts. This is not a site for discussion of village atheist rhetoric against the Bible, there are sites that do so quite adequately [start here for just one instance]; were you serious, you would go there and take their remarks seriously. That you continue to try to drag discussion here off track, speaks volumes as to what -- and likely who -- you are. kairosfocus
WJM @1089 (Thumbs up) Concealed Citizen
LCD: Abortion is also a child sacrifice but you agree with this type of killing as moral When did I say that I agree with this type of killing as moral? Concealed Citizen
WJM “ Quote of the day right there.” I have to reluctantly agree. Steve Alten2
LCD, 1. If there is no God then [to] kill is not bad (lion vs gazelle, cat vs mouse ,etc) Not supported by any facts in evidence. There may not be a monarchical God the way you might imagine, but "good" vs "evil" may still be a property of the root reality. Within consciousness there are contrasts that all consciousn entities experience in varying degrees. This forms the basis of all "good" and "evil" in any meaningful way. 2.If God exist,soul is immortal so there is not a thing like “killing” babies by God . So if Hitler was told by God to kill all the Jews, that's okay because "there is not a thing like killing by God"? 3.If God exist and Canaanites perform child sacrifice to Moloh(satan) don’t you think is better for babies souls to be taken before sacrificial activities performed with permission of their own parents? The Israelites could have adopted the babies and young children. Why did they have to be murdered? Back to my question: Do you agree with killing innocent Canaanite babies just because Yahweh said so? Apparently you think, yes, it was okay. So, for the sake of discussion, if Yahweh told Hitler to kill Jews (for God's hidden purposes, whatever they may be), would that be okay? Yes or no? Concealed Citizen
ET: Murderers do what comes natural to them. Rapists do what comes natural to them. Thieves do what comes natural to them. Bullies do what comes natural to them. You biased, arbitrary list seems to imply that homosexuals are on par with murderers, rapists and bullies. Is this what you intend? You seem to think that you are some sort of psychic and crank. ? You are the one making the claim. I didn't make a claim. I asked questions. It is if you are having sex with the golf course and want to marry it. So, playing golf is not "bad." Good to know. Why is homosexuality "bad" and not golf? Neither leads to "having children" that you specified as a criterion. Is celibacy bad? Concealed Citizen
KF: CC, your failure to understand Hitler’s manifest evil discredits your further attempts to impose your whims or fancies. I asked some simple questions. This is how one tests a philosophy. You refuse to provide straights answers. Concealed Citizen
VL said:
As I’ve said, you don’t want to discuss these things because they highlight how your philosophy is impotent once it leaves the ivory tower.
Quote of the day right there. At the end of the day, those that have the capacity and will to do so, make the rules and run any society regardless of any constitution, laws, history, conscience, reasoning, etc.; and the people obey and follow only to the degree that they agree with or cannot resist or avoid. This is what actually happens outside of the ivory tower. People of will and capacity will always rise to power and use that power for their own ends regardless of how one structures the system of power. As long as the people in power didn't want legalized same-sex marriage, it didn't happen. When the people in power were accepting of it, in those places it became legal. The same can be said for everything. The USA was *never* close to the idealist version put to paper at the beginning of the country. It has *always* been run by people of power and wealth - not by the will of the people. Every social system is ultimately run by people of power and wealth. The only thing a revolution might do is change which people of power and wealth are at the top. William J Murray
seversky:
If human beings are able engage in homosexual relationships then it is in human nature to do so and it is natural for them to do so.
Or it's just a bastardization of human nature.
If human beings were brought about by an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator then we have to assume that the capacity for homosexual behavior was built in to human nature.
Or it arose due to a corrupted Creation.
An all-knowing Creator would have known right from the beginning exactly what His designs would be capable of and an all-powerful Creator could have designed us to be otherwise if that was what He wanted.
Your strawman aside, said Creator wanted to see what would happen if left to our own devices.
We have to assume that, since nothing happens but by His will, homosexuality is part of His plan and to oppose it is to place yourself in opposition to His will which makes any who do that sinful.
You just love strawmen. We have to assume that all you have is crap that you just fling around as if it means something. ET
Concealed Citizen Do you agree with killing innocent Canaanite babies just because Yahweh said so? It’s a yes or no answer.
:) This question is lose-lose-lose situation for you. 1.If there is no God then kill is not bad (lion vs gazelle, cat vs mouse ,etc) 2.If God exist,soul is immortal so there is not a thing like "killing" babies by God . 3.If God exist and Canaanites perform child sacrifice to Moloh(satan) don't you think is better for babies souls to be taken before sacrificial activities performed with permission of their own parents? Abortion is also a child sacrifice but you agree with this type of killing as moral ,while God doesn't have the right to take the soul of innocent babies before are sold to satan. Try again. Hahahaha.
Seversky An all-knowing Creator would have known right from the beginning
Oups,another one without free will that knows how morality works. A contradiction . A self defeater. Lieutenant Commander Data
If human beings are able engage in homosexual relationships then it is in human nature to do so and it is natural for them to do so. If human beings were brought about by an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator then we have to assume that the capacity for homosexual behavior was built in to human nature. An all-knowing Creator would have known right from the beginning exactly what His designs would be capable of and an all-powerful Creator could have designed us to be otherwise if that was what He wanted. We have to assume that, since nothing happens but by His will, homosexuality is part of His plan and to oppose it is to place yourself in opposition to His will which makes any who do that sinful. Seversky
CC:
Gay people do what comes natural to them.
Murderers do what comes natural to them. Rapists do what comes natural to them. Thieves do what comes natural to them. Bullies do what comes natural to them.
You seem to be making some kind of claim… that what gay people do 1) isn’t “natural”, and 2) it’s bad.
You seem to think that you are some sort of psychic and crank.
Why is it that if gay sex doesn’t lead to babies it is “bad”?
You are the one making the claim. I am saying that since same-sex sex doesn't lead to babies then same-sex marriages should not be allowed.
I play golf. It doesn’t lead to babies. Is that bad too?
It is if you are having sex with the golf course and want to marry it. ET
Acartia Stevie:
Marriage is what society decides it to be.
And by that "definition" marriage is just total arbitrary, meaningless nonsense.
It seems to me that religiously acceptable versions of marriage have far more in common with a sewer than same sex marriage.
What does sewing have to do with it? ET
Marriage is what society decides it to be. In some cultures it is between one man and many women. In not to distant Catholic history, it could be between a man and a woman as young as 13. In some cultures it is between a man and a woman as determined by parental arrangement. Also in the not too distant Catholic Church it could be a contractual arrangement between a man and a woman’s father, regardless of the woman’s opinion. In some, it could be between brother and sister. It seems to me that religiously acceptable versions of marriage have far more in common with a sewer than same sex marriage. Steve Alten2
But what if one doesn't care what the Bible says? If you and your religion want to consider homosexuality immoral, that is your choice, but that is not justification for legally denying same-sex marriage. This is exactly on the topic of the OP: the claim that natural law should guide man-made laws. If we have no way of establishing what the "natural law" is, then obviously we have to find a different guide for establishing our laws. Viola Lee
Asauber: “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Is that what the Bible passage actually says based on the best translation? JVL
KF writes, "Enough has long since been put on the table to see that word magic and pressure tactics cannot change what is built in by nature." So the Evangelical Lutheran Church is wrong? And as someone said above, homosexuals attraction to the same sex is "built in by nature." This is not a "sewer" topic. It is a critical subject concerning love for a lifelong companion. You betray your constant invocations about fairness, justice, conscience, your neighbor, etc. when you reject all opinions other than your own as defective. As I've said, you don't want to discuss these things because they highlight how your philosophy is impotent once it leaves the ivory tower. Viola Lee
Folks, I have been busy elsewhere. I see a side track is in progress. And predictably, it headed for the sewer. Gavelling, now. Enough has long since been put on the table to see that word magic and pressure tactics cannot change what is built in by nature. KF PS: CC, your failure to understand Hitler's manifest evil discredits your further attempts to impose your whims or fancies. kairosfocus
ET: natural law. Gay people do what comes natural to them. You seem to be making some kind of claim... that what gay people do 1) isn't "natural", and 2) it's bad. Why is it that if gay sex doesn't lead to babies it is "bad"? I play golf. It doesn't lead to babies. Is that bad too? Concealed Citizen
Jerry, "That his duties are essential for human success are beyond doubt. " Define "success". Prove why anyone should care what that means. Concealed Citizen
And no, Jerry, KF has not “won”.
Most definitely he has won. That his duties are essential for human success are beyond doubt. You want to try and undermine this thesis by picking some very specific questions and show some inconsistencies. By his not wanting to address your specific issues in no way undermines his thesis. By saying you disagree with the Catholic Church on some specific issue does not in any way lessen the validity of his argument. His list of duties leads to the thriving of humanity and individual humans specifically. Which is obvious. You could undermine his thesis by taking one of the duties and showing it harms humanity and generally a number of humans. But no one has. Cicero picked these duties because it was obvious they were positive influences on humans. Kf has won his argument. jerry
Seeing that same sex couples cannot procreate it is obvious that theirs goes against natural law. ET
Wikipedia site on church positions on homosexuality The majority see it as sin, but some do not. For instance,
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, allows for LGBTQ+ marriage and ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy. ELCA policy states that LGBTQ+ individuals are welcome and encouraged to become members and to participate in the life of the congregation. The ELCA has provided supplemental resources for the rite of marriage in Evangelical Lutheran Worship which use inclusive language and are suitable for use in LGBTQ+ marriage ceremonies.[61] The group ReconcilingWorks supports the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ members in Lutheran churches in the ELCA, and provides resources to assist ELCA congregations in becoming more welcoming communities for LGBTQ+ persons. ReconcilingWorks recognizes ELCA congregations that have committed to embracing LGBTQ+ persons as Reconciling in Christ congregations.[62]
So who is acting in accordance with "natural law", the Evangelical Lutheran Church or the Catholic Church. Who is following the duties of "right reason" correctly? How is this anything other than individual positions on something that has no objective right answer, but is rather a choice based on values of conscience and compassion and rational understanding. Viola Lee
asauber Umm, no, not in general. Only if came down to him or me surviving, as I said. Do you have comprehension problems? Hehehe. What would you do? Lay down and surrender like some cuck? Concealed Citizen
Acartia stevie:
Then I assume that you agree with ET that post menopausal women should not be allowed to get married.
There isn't any reason for people to get married if they are not going to or cannot have children. Women who wait for menopause to marry kind of missed the boat. ET
"If it came down to you or me surviving I would slit your throat" This sounds pretty hostile. Andrew asauber
Jerry: An objective for humans is survival. I assume everyone agrees. If not then please go some place else. Survival of individuals based on self-interest and interest of what we value. Not primarily survival based on "tribes" or groups. That is secondary. If it came down to you or me surviving I would slit your throat in a 1/2 second. And if it came down to your survival or one of my kids, I would slit your throat even quicker. That you can't see this... hehehe. It's a hierarchy of values. And ideology and religion and whatever else, becomes literally nothing in life-or-death situations. The lions know a thing or two that you don't seem to know. And the Creator is quite happy about them doing what they do. Concealed Citizen
And no, Jerry, KF has not "won". KF has continually not addressed the central topic of people disagreeing about moral issues, other than to call some people defective in their moral judgments. His philosophy leaves no room for legitimate differing positions about moral issues, so he always wants to avoid discussing real-world situations. In this regard he loses, not wins. Viola Lee
"Then I assume that you agree with ET that post menopausal women should not be allowed to get married. Is this correct?" Not correct. And I'm not sure why you are asking me about what ET thinks. Andrew asauber
Jerry got triggered. Hehe. Concealed Citizen
Marriage includes sex, and those others don't. I didn't say sex was not important. It's just not necessarily, at all times and conditions, primarily important. It plays a varying role in combination with those other factors that you mention. Viola Lee
VL. "sex has been important" I think you are deliberately missing the point. "love, companionship, and sharing the ups and downs of life" These are not what define marriage. You can love your enemies. Two are better than one across the board. Sharing ups and downs is also for buddies, extended family, and counselors. Andrew asauber
Yes, Kf has won. When the discussion has diverted to homosexuality and lions hunting the OP is now not in dispute. jerry
Jerry @1060 Non-responsive. No credibility. Concealed Citizen
Andrew “ Yes, that’s why its called the marital act. It’s about procreation of family according to natural order.“ Then I assume that you agree with ET that post menopausal women should not be allowed to get married. Is this correct? Steve Alten2
Well, Asauber, I've been married for a number of decades, and yes, sex has been important, but I feel very strongly that love, companionship, and sharing the ups and downs of life have been in the long run of more importance, so I disagree with you. Viola Lee
Yes or no?
Study ecology. It will answer your question. That someone would ask this question says more about the questioner than about the question being asked. Relevant to OP. When this is the line of questioning.
Kf has won!!!
Birds, bats, frogs, spiders and other insects eat mosquitoes. It shows these species have a nature. Good or not that they have a nature? This nature? jerry
"Asauber, is a marriage between a man and a woman primarily about sex?" VL, Yes, that's why its called the marital act. It's about procreation of family according to natural order. Same-sex marriage is a pretense to camouflage Lord knows what. Andrew asauber
Asauber, is a marriage between a man and a woman primarily about sex? Viola Lee
Jerry @1054 Yes or no? Concealed Citizen
"same-sex marriage is about much more than sex" VL, I don't accept that it is. It's primarily about sex. No doubt about it. Andrew asauber
"Do you agree with killing innocent Canaanite babies just because Yahweh said so?" Off topic Andrew asauber
A lion’s objective is survival. They kill gazelles to survive. Good? Or not?
What is the relevance of this? Are you now saying hunting is not natural when you just pointed to it as natural? I suggest you study ecology and come back. By the way, there are same species attacks that lead to death. I once watched a hippo attack another hippo in order to take over his harem. Extremely vicious. The harem also chose to attack the intruder. The intruder escaped but was very wounded. My guess is he didn’t survive. jerry
And, Concealed Citizen, same-sex marriage is about much more than sex, and includes women as well as men. It's about love and life-long companionship. I don't think it furthers the conversation to focus on just one aspect of male sex. Viola Lee
Absolutely not.
Of course you agree. Kf said nothing about specific religious doctrines. That you appeal to one is indicative that you agree. You tried to find an exception to what Kf said and your example is not one. jerry
Jerry: An objective for humans is survival. A lion's objective is survival. They kill gazelles to survive. Good? Or not? Concealed Citizen
asauber: “what is the Biblical support for homosexuality being a sin?” Leviticus 18:22 Do you agree with killing innocent Canaanite babies just because Yahweh said so? It's a yes or no answer. Concealed Citizen
At 1042, Jerry writes, "By bringing up this example, I assume you agree 100% with Kf’s thesis. And now you are on to something else." Absolutely not. The "something else" is a real-world example of my thesis that we each have to use our reason and compassion to make moral judgments, and that no one, including the Pope and the Catholic Church, have some special access to the "naturally correct" answer. I believe the Catholic position is immoral, and fails under a number of KF's criteria for right reason: my conscience tells me it's wrong, and it is unfair and unjust to my neighbor. Viola Lee
KF, So, if my goal is to explain my position to you, even when I am saying "you are wrong" and explaining something in contradiction to root-level oughts, I still ought form the letters and sequences of words rationally and coherently, using "right reason" (as best I can) to convey that meaning to you, and I still have to do it when I lie or mislead. Even if I am manipulating others emotionally, I have to apply, and ought apply, right reasoning in the attempt to do so. So, "right reasoning" is inherently implied regardless of what I'm doing or why I'm doing it, or else the attempt to attain my goal can't even get off the ground. William J Murray
We are now into religious doctrines which all agree has nothing to do with OP. Especially specific ones. This could lead to 100,000 comments before its finished. I assume all now agree with the OP. jerry
"what is the Biblical support for homosexuality being a sin?" Leviticus 18:22 Andrew asauber
How could be destroyed a organisation? Simple, ushering your people to the leadership of that institution. From inside is the best way to destroy your "enemy". Anyway Catholic Church is not the real Church since 1054. The other side (from which Catholic Church splitted ) is the true christian Church: Eastern Ortodox Christian Church. All protestant,neo-protestant churches,sects are all the "children " of Catholic Church, all more and more far away from the Christ's Church. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Catholic-Spring-Wikileaks-Orchestrated-Benedict-ebook/dp/B07X294TZC
JVL Okay, what is the Biblical support for homosexuality being a sin? According to church doctrine what is a sin anyway?
:) You don't need Biblical support , you need only common sense . What is homosexuality for "end of digestive tract" is what is bulimia for stomach, going on the opposite direction on a one-way street. ;) PS: ...and smell like [you know what] Lieutenant Commander Data
KF said:
WJM, the goal of logic, more properly, of right reason, is . . . manifestly . . . to have well warranted confidence that one’s conclusions are true, prudent, reliable, correct. KF
OMG!! I think I finally understand you and agree with you! You aren't talking about ultimate goals when you say "first duty," you're talking about the root-level steps you have to take to pursue any goal! First step: you have to identify the goal. This is an existential level ought, an inescapable duty that must precede any other thought or action towards the target goal. Just to have a goal you have to identify things - identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction. William J Murray
"I think the Catholic Church is quite wrong here" VL, Great. But why? No explanation? That you don't accept it is not an explanation. Andrew asauber
I say baloney
By bringing up this example, I assume you agree 100% with Kf’s thesis. And now you are on to something else. jerry
Explaining their decision in a lengthy note on Monday, the Holy See referred to homosexuality as a “choice,” described it as sinful and said it “cannot be recognized as objectively ordered” to God’s plans. The stance is certain to disappoint millions of gay and lesbian Catholics around the world.
Can they still be recognised as Catholic if they disagree with church doctrine?
“The blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit,” the Vatican’s top doctrinal office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in the statement. God “does not and cannot bless sin,” the statement added.
Okay, what is the Biblical support for homosexuality being a sin? According to church doctrine what is a sin anyway? JVL
Here is a real-world example in the news. I think the Catholic Church is quite wrong here, and I do not accept that some "natural law" philosophy or theology is right about this.
Rome (CNN)The Vatican said Monday that the Catholic Church would not bless same-sex unions, in a combative statement approved by Pope Francis that threatens to widen the chasm between the church and much of the LGBTQ community. Explaining their decision in a lengthy note on Monday, the Holy See referred to homosexuality as a "choice," described it as sinful and said it "cannot be recognized as objectively ordered" to God's plans. The stance is certain to disappoint millions of gay and lesbian Catholics around the world. "The blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit," the Vatican's top doctrinal office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in the statement. God "does not and cannot bless sin," the statement added.
I say baloney. Viola Lee
WJM, the goal of logic, more properly, of right reason, is . . . manifestly . . . to have well warranted confidence that one's conclusions are true, prudent, reliable, correct. KF kairosfocus
Jerry (attn WJM): yes, the list has been given in positive form starting with the OP and now also in negative form in the thread. From the OP:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, 1 – to truth, 2 – to right reason, 3 – to prudence, 4 – to sound conscience, 5 – to neighbour; so also, 6 – to fairness and 7 – justice x – etc.
The negative form, more or less is: >>ponder: is it acceptable to be habitually untruthful (or in error), illogical or unreasonable, imprudent, benumbed or warped in conscience, un-neighbourly, unfair and unjust, etc? The question answers itself! Now, ponder a second question: why is it so obviously unacceptable?>> Furthermore, >>objectors to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction, while also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. >> KF kairosfocus
The first and, ultimately, only duty a sentient being can be said to have, is to enjoyment.
This is an example of someone who should go someplace else. jerry
Jerry said:
An objective for humans is survival. I assume everyone agrees.
Unless survival is deemed by the human to not be as enjoyable as putting an end to their life. Enjoyment trumps survival. Everything you listed can be put in terms of enjoying one's existence and avoiding the unenjoyable aspects, even if the latter results in suicide. William J Murray
An objective for humans is survival. I assume everyone agrees. If not then please go some place else. To survive, which activities increase the likelihood of survival? I believe all of Kf suggested activities called duties as first enumerated by Cicero do that. If one wants to go further, and recognize all humans want to feel important and thrive let alone survive, then what activities enhance the chances of meeting that objective? I believe all of Kf’s duties as enumerated by Cicero do that. Not hard to understand. And fighting this by a few for over a 1,000 + comments because of Kf’s rhetorical style is really the interesting part of this thread. He essentially nailed it in the OP. I believe there is one other important objective in our nature, the desire for freedom. This was not addressed by those early advocates of natural law. So latter day natural law theorists have addressed this. jerry
To further elaborate: When KF says that everything I say or do implies a "First Duty," what I infer is that a duty is necessarily to a goal. But what is "the goal" of employing logic? Fundamental logical principles are not a "goal;" there are the necessary, inescapable foundation of how one must pursue any goal. To say that my "duty" is to "use logic properly" is only valid if "using logic properly" is my goal; to say it is an inescapable primary goal "for all sentient creatures" is obviously false. Most people are not trying to employ "right reason;" they're just using whatever they use of it in an effort to achieve whatever goal they have. It's a means to an end, not the end itself. To use any tools to achieve any goal in any coherent manner is to employ free will to imagine the potential goals and then try to instantiate those goals. This defines oughts for us. An inescapable aspect of Free Will is preference. All decisions ultimately boil down to preference, either in the direct choice or in the way we make choices, even if it is flipping a coin. Preference is also an inescapable aspect of enjoyment; our scale of enjoyment is naturally, inescapable evaluated via preference, regardless of how one sorts and organizes the many different forms of enjoyment. Thus, Free Will is inescapably used to pursue the enjoyments we prefer, however we define, organize or prioritize them. That is the fundamental nature of all sentient creatures which cannot be avoided. There is only one category of goals that can be said to be fundamental to all goals and thus, in any significant meaning of the term, be the only "first duty." The first and, ultimately, only duty a sentient being can be said to have, is to enjoyment. William J Murray
Jerry said:
It’s been answered several times.
I don't doubt this, I just wanted to pose the situation and get an answer for it one last time to see if I could possibly understand KF's perspective. KF is apparently referring to something that, from my perspective, doesn't even exist, so there's really no way I can "see" what he is pointing at. William J Murray
Thanks, KF. That does clear it up for me, at least in respect to understanding that, whatever you are talking about, it is utterly incomprehensible to me. It's probably because we have such fundamentally divergent root perspectives. I appreciate your time and effort. Now, I'm going to reveal what everyone's objective goal is, the thing that all oughts are ultimately in relation to, even down to the smallest derivative decision. It is inescapable and universal whether one is a sociopath, a Ghandhi, or anyone in-between, or **any** sentient being anywhere. Enjoyment. William J Murray
Could you answer the question posed @1016? I’m trying to understand what it is you are referring to when you say first duties, and I think that might clear it up for me. Thanks.
It’s been answered several times. jerry
WJM, I thought I already adequately gave my point. You will note that in your comment at 1016 you again make such appeals to our responsiveness to first duties. Even your description of "SOUND reason" speaks to the point. Recall, earlier, your "you're WRONG" which again underscores the point. KF kairosfocus
PS: For reference, US DoI:
When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [--> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15; note, law as "the highest reason," per Cicero on received consensus], that all men are created equal [--> note, equality of humanity], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
kairosfocus
KF, Could you answer the question posed @1016? I'm trying to understand what it is you are referring to when you say first duties, and I think that might clear it up for me. Thanks. William J Murray
VL, we have already showed cases on history of how the natural law framework actually contributed to the rise of modern liberty and democracy. For capital example kindly consult the US DoI, 1776 and Constitution, 1787 - 9. This is the framework that actually did set up what we now enjoy but are squandering. I already addressed the example of divorce, using it to show both the naturally evident nature of marriage rooted in the two sexes and requisites of sound child nurture [no prizes for guessing the roots of many problems in society today] -- which, being built-in, cannot be changed through word magic decrees of corrupt elites and their publicists. The case of regulating divorce then gives a context where the issue of hard heartedness and gradual reform has to be faced. The case of prohibition in the US is a sad classic on this subject. Of course, the track record of your side-stepping this is there for those who care to go back. As for promotion of ever more bizarre perversities, self-mutilation etc under colour of rights etc, those will burn themselves out, sadly, leaving numbers of people to deal with consequences of ill advised self harm. So, no, the thesis that core first duties are irrelevant to solving real world problems fails. KF PS: Having already taken time to spend on a discussion thread that addressed fashionable but for cause repulsive hobby horses there will not be another, nor will there be toleration of trying to sidetrack every thread. I point you to the historic example on perversity in power, Suetonius' life of Nero, in his lives of the twelve Caesars. And no, I will not link. kairosfocus
Jerry, yes, classical writers typically did not speak of freedoms but emphasised duties. One major exception is of course the New Testament's authors. We can point to reasons tied to social fragility and the absence of a base for a mass based politics with strong self-regulation. Until about 300-350 years ago, the best practical solution possible was lawful oligarchy, with the ever present threat of descent into lawless oligarchy or emergence of anarchy, if for instance there was a pandemic. I repeat, lawless oligarchy is the "typical' state of government, across time. There are reasons why I point to the period from invention of printing to the Glorious Revolution as a key breakthrough era that opened up new political possibilities. You will note the definition of justice that I put forward: due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. Notice, the reciprocal relationship between rights and duties and the way that frames freedoms, as opposed to licence. (The latter is a word that we need to bring back into focus.) Duty to justice, as thus defined, makes freedom within due balance of rights and duties pivotal to sound civilisation in a literacy empowered, gospel ethics heart softened age. KF kairosfocus
Data, best not to follow up on intentional, smelly red herring distractors. Were CC serious, there are sites that seriously address such matters and other typical internet skeptic objections and rhetorical stunts. This is not a site or a thread for that purpose. That resort is made to such speaks for itself, especially when we just saw the same commenter unable to acknowledge the manifest evil of a Hitler by demanding a sez who response. KF kairosfocus
Concealed Citizen Assuming the tale is true, when Yahweh told the Israelites to go kill every man, woman and child in Canaan, were the Israelites duty bound to kill them all, or “duty bound not to murder?” Let’s say God told Hitler to kill as many Jews as he could for some goal of a greater good in God’s mind. Would Hitler have been duty bound to kill them all, or “duty bound not to murder?”
:))) Your "questions" are dumb . That's happening when an ignorant read on the internet ideas wrote by other("famous") ignorants and then come here to show off. Why specifically was given by God the command against Canaan tribes? I guess you won't find that on atheists websites because the simple explanation would blow up all atheistic rhetoric so if you want to find out you'll have to open the Bible. Of course you are not curious about the truth because otherwise you would have already know the truth about Canaanites and accordingly wouldn't ask dumb questions. Lieutenant Commander Data
CC, that you have to ask and feel free to publicly proceed to the Arthur Leff grand sez who dismissal tells us saddening volumes about where our civilisation has gone even in the face of the most infamous mass murdering criminal in history . . . mind you, I am also aware that he is likely only no 2 on the list of the big three, responsibility for a war noses out Stalin but cannot beat Mao. Perhaps, you were not aware that I was alluding to an event in the Nuremberg trials, when the Nazis offered the cultural relativism defence that orders are orders and they were only obeying legitimate rulers and officials of their state so there was no basis to judge them. One of the key points of the answer was, in effect: you did not need a state to pass a law that says so to know that murder is wrong. In short, you are showing, inadvertently, what happens when a civilisation loses sight of the priority of the built-in law coeval with our humanity. Observe, here, Cicero's argument:
, On the Republic, Bk 3: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with [--> our morally governed] nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it [--> as universally binding core of law], and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people [--> as binding, universal, coeval with our humanity], and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. [--> sound conscience- guided reason will point out the core] And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 55 - 54 BC
That Bible-thumping fundy ignoramus -- NOT. The immediate answer to your question is, we all, collectively, told me. That is, certain core built in duties are self-evident and constitute our first law code, evident to the reasonable, responsible person. Even, if that person's conscience is in such a bad way that s/he does not feel it . . . Hitler's condition. The code known as the natural law, by Ciceronian definition, highest reason applied to justice . . . the due balance of rights freedoms and responsibilities or duties. Particularly, life is the first and gateway right, for without life one has no other rights. The willful taking of life is an awful responsibility, even when justified in defence of the civil peace of justice from its enemies, foreign and domestic. The willful robbing of innocents of their lives is the worst natural law, inherently and manifestly criminal act. The murderer, especially the mass murderer, therefore makes himself the enemy of humanity. These, at some level, we all know or should acknowledge. That we have reached the pass where we now are, that we imagine a Hitler is a debatable case, is itself sobering. And yes, that is where those who have thought to substitute the idea that law is whatever those who control the legal presses issue have inadvertently led us. No, municipal decrees, rulings, acts and regulations are accountable before the first law, the built in law of our nature. The same, that identifies murder as the worst of crimes. KF kairosfocus
Sure, millions of people believe in other perspectives.
That is not an answer to the question that are these perspectives believable? At any time millions of people, probably billions believe in things that are objectively false and can be shown so. See finding from Hans Rosling above.
most of our metaphysical religious and philosophical beliefs are unprovable assertions:
Is that true? If you are looking for absolute QED proof, then yes. But extremely likely, most definitely that is a yes. There is a long history of examination of the basis for Christianity which is what you are specifically questioning.
we choose to adopt as beliefs because they help create what we consider the best way of looking at the world.
Yes, but not just that. Kf is making the case, as best I can determine, that these are necessary not only for survival but for flourishing. So if flourishing is an objective, are these specifics necessary for this. I believe a good case can be made for this. So his list of duties which I believe came from Cicero are necessary for flourishing. I maintain that Cicero and several others missed something extremely important, namely freedom as necessary for flourishing. So I maintain it is a duty to respect others freedom. Obviously within limits. All these duties that flow from human objectives are the basis for positive laws. These positive laws vary from culture to culture and should be examined based on these duties flowing from the natural law or human nature. So we have a connection:
laws of physics (p) implies natural laws (q) through how life is made with various sub-parts, mainly proteins which then imply positive laws made by society (r).
So p-> q -> r. This is the headline of the OP. This is what is being argued and I believe is highly likely no matter what one’s religious perspective is. jerry
1021 Jerry asks, "Are the other perspectives believable? I have never seen anything that indicates that they are. They are just alternative assertions." Sure, millions of people believe in other perspectives. They may not be believable to you, but they are to others. And yes, most of our metaphysical religious and philosophical beliefs are unprovable assertions: they are things we choose to adopt as beliefs because they help create what we consider the best way of looking at the world. To you, those that recognize a natural law that governs humans are valuable, but whether such natural law exists in the way KF posits it to exist is the subject of this discussion. The key notion, started several posts ago, is whether there is a single correct answer, based on natural law, to real world moral questions (divorce, SSM, war, providing social services to the poor, ... - the list goes on and on), or not. The perspective I propose is that we have fundamental capacities for rationality and compassion, but there is no correct answer to such specific questions, and that each of us has to exercise those capabilities ti make choices, and possibly take stands, on what we think is best. This is an alternative to KF's view as quoted in 1017. Viola Lee
These are not provable beliefs, and other perspectives exist.
Are the other perspectives believable? I have never seen anything that indicates that they are. They are just alternative assertions. Some are valuable because they recognize a natural law that governs humans. So conclusions based on this natural law are valuable. But are they different from anything Kf is proposing? jerry
KF: 16: Duty is independent of the sensitivity of a given conscience about the duty. A Hitler had no feelings about murder, but was duty bound not to murder. Who says Hilter was "duty bound not to murder?" Who, when and where? Be specific. What if all Jews are incarnated demons? Wouldn't we all have the duty to kill them all? Assuming the tale is true, when Yahweh told the Israelites to go kill every man, woman and child in Canaan, were the Israelites duty bound to kill them all, or "duty bound not to murder?" Let's say God told Hitler to kill as many Jews as he could for some goal of a greater good in God's mind. Would Hitler have been duty bound to kill them all, or "duty bound not to murder?" Concealed Citizen
WMJ: Oughts can only exist in relationship to goals. Inescapable oughts must refer to inescapable goals. What is the universal, objective, inescapable goal that grounds such oughts? Well put, tight statement of the essence. Concealed Citizen
re 1015, to Jerry: Probably true, Jerry. I have pointed out that all of KF's philosophy stems from this assertion:
The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
KF's worldview flows from this set of core beliefs. He has a faith that such a God exists, and that our human nature is rooted in that God. These are not provable beliefs, and other perspectives exist. Discussion would be more productive if we saw it has trying to understand differing perspectives so as to live in a world of differing perspectives rather than trying to prove that one perspective is right and the others wrong. Viola Lee
KF, When you say this:
So, were you aware that there are no such duties but chose to try to manipulate me and others looking on emotionally? If that were so, that would be a grave sign.
No. I was aware (or at least believe) that I have no such duties, but choose to utilize sound reasoning and truth-telling as best I can in this forum. As I have said, I don't employ those tools and tactics everywhere, in every interaction., because I have different goals in different situations that define my "oughts" in relation to those goals. Let's assume, by the principle of charity, that what I'm saying above is true and I actually do behave as I have described above, and all of my oughts (at least that I'm conscious of) serve my enjoyments as I have said before. This means that if it serves my arrangement and prioritization of enjoyment, I will lie, cheat, steal, kill, be kind, generous, loving, hateful, honest, fair or unfair, just or unjust, in service to my enjoyments, that my "conscience" never bothers me; that I am as empathetic or non-empathetic as I want to be, depending on the situation and how it serves my enjoyment agenda. IF that is all true, is the way I am making my case here, now, to you and others, implying any "First Duties?" William J Murray
Just positing a superior intelligence (your phrase) or creative power (my phrase) in itself leaves many unanswered, and in my opinion, unanswerable, ontological questions.
So all these tens of thousands of words (or is it hundreds of thousands) comes down to whether there is a God or not that created the universe and humans? And if that God if He did create humans had specific objectives or not with His creation? A lot of trouble could have been saved if this had been clearly said a thousand comments ago. Aside: “creative power” is very similar to what the Stoics used to describe the origin of a Natural Law. jerry
WJM, again for clarity: >>Perhaps you have a valid claim – that I cannot avoid appealing to a duty,>> 1: a first step. 2: Now, note where that leads as I just noted:
5: Instead, I rephrase more accurately: Can the unavoidable use of [–> appeal to duties to] those fundamental logical principles [–> as a part of duty to right reason etc] logically imply any duties? 6: the answer is yes, precisely because the appeal to first duties is unavoidable, inescapable, universal: attempts to deny, object or dismiss AND attempts to prove, alike embed appeals to the duties. They are undeniable and unprovable, they are priors of reasoning, arguing etc. Arguing, denying, proving etc hang from those things, not the reverse.
3: Let me chain as a set of propositions:
p1: the appeal to first duties is unavoidable, inescapable, universal: _____________________________ C1: attempts to deny, object or dismiss AND attempts to prove, alike embed appeals to the duties. p2: They [appeals to first duties of reason] are undeniable and unprovable, they are priors of reasoning, arguing etc. - as, they are pervasive, the denial cannot avoid them, the attempted proof also ________________________________ C2: Arguing, denying, proving etc hang from those things, not the reverse.
>> but if so, there’s something I’m missing. The only kind of thing that I see that I am necessarily appealing to are the principles of logic.>> 4: No, you are implicitly appealing to DUTIES to said principles, i.e. you expect reasonable argument that correctly uses said principles and other first principles of reason, cf. my u/d to OP that tabulates some. 5: "You incorrectly used principles, I correctly do so" is a common response, claiming errors of reasoning or fallacies. >> What “duty” are you referring to that is inescapable?>> 6: Repeat, I am not appealing to duties that cannot be violated, the very term duty points to ought vs is. 7: What we cannot avoid is appealing to certain first duties of reason. >>Let’s say that I cannot avoid the duty to use right reason>> 8: Ambiguity. You can do other than duty, but that does not change that you ought to have done duty. >> (as distinguished from the core principles of logic, which are unavoidable.)>> 9: In attempts to reason and communicate, we cannot but respect distinct identity of symbols, and close corollaries. In that sense, unavoidable. However, we often err in further stages of reasoning or even some try to deny and dismiss distinct identity, non contradiction and excluded middle. That came up earlier. They end up trying to saw off the branch on which we are all sitting. 10: So, there is an ambiguity in the statement, kindly note the distinction and the common error. >> I don’t understand what that means.>> 11: An effect of the ambiguity of your phrasing, and the statement as was already noted is different from my point regarding duty to right reason etc and appeals to such duties. 12: For clarity, we often fail to fulfill duties, which does not change that we ought to have done better. 13: What we cannot avoid -- it pervades your comment -- is appealing to the binding nature of such duties. >> You seem to extract from my use (or at least attempted use) of “right reason” as necessarily implying that I have a duty to employ it.>> 14: Only in the sense that part of right reason is that we have a duty to reason correctly. 15: Again, what we cannot evade or avoid is appealing to first duties of reason, including when we try to object or to prove. These are the hooks that we hang proofs and objections from. >> I don’t feel any such duty.>> 16: Duty is independent of the sensitivity of a given conscience about the duty. A Hitler had no feelings about murder, but was duty bound not to murder. >> I’m not aware of any such duty. >> 17: When you wrote, "you're wrong" above, as I noted already, you appealed to said duties and my implicit acknowledgement of their binding nature. So, were you aware that there are no such duties but chose to try to manipulate me and others looking on emotionally? If that were so, that would be a grave sign. 18: I think not, I think you are seeking clarity and made an unfortunate phrasing. >>I often choose to not employ it.>> 19: If you are here suggesting frequent willful violation of duties to sound reasoning, that would be serious. Indeed, that would discredit your arguments by making them suspect. I still think you are wording less than happily. >> I don’t feel any guilt or pang of conscience when I use other means of persuasion.>> 20: There are many legitimate uses of say an extrinsic reward, or appeal to empathy, or to conscience or to fear etc, but there are cases where such can become manipulative and exploitative. >>I don’t understand what you mean when you say “how you say what you say implies a duty.”>> 21: See above. Try, "you're wrong." >> Saying it over and over doesn’t change the fact that I don’t understand what you mean when you say it.>> 22: Again, try out how you opened a comment with, "you're wrong." 23: As a reminder, AmHD: >>wrong (rông, r?ng) adj. 1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous: a wrong answer. 2. a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law: Stealing is wrong. b. Unfair; unjust: The kids felt it was wrong when some got to go on the field trip but not others.>> KF kairosfocus
I mean, I know what the universal, existentially unavoidable goal is, and what all oughts are necessarily ultimately about, but you're probably not going to like it. William J Murray
One might say that if my goal is to make a sound logical argument, then I ought (duty) use the principles of logic correctly using truth statements. However, if my goal is to deceive someone, then what I ought do (duty) is make false statements, or use "wrong reasoning" to pull off the deception. Oughts can only exist in relationship to goals. Inescapable oughts must refer to inescapable goals. What is the universal, objective, inescapable goal that grounds such oughts? William J Murray
Backing up for a minute: I would say that correctly using the fundamental principles of logic in one's reasoning would be the definition of right reason. IOW, I don't misidentify things or make a self-contradicting statement, etc. That would be the definition of "right reason," but it doesn't innately mean I have a duty to not misidentify things or contradict myself. Where does the duty come from? William J Murray
KF, Okay, so you're saying that I have a duty to employ the logical principles when I use right reason. Why or how do I have a duty to use right reason? William J Murray
KF, Perhaps you have a valid claim - that I cannot avoid appealing to a duty, but if so, there's something I'm missing. The only kind of thing that I see that I am necessarily appealing to are the principles of logic. What "duty" are you referring to that is inescapable? Let's say that I cannot avoid the duty to use right reason (as distinguished from the core principles of logic, which are unavoidable.) I don't understand what that means. You seem to extract from my use (or at least attempted use) of "right reason" as necessarily implying that I have a duty to employ it. I don't feel any such duty. I'm not aware of any such duty. I often choose to not employ it. I don't feel any guilt or pang of conscience when I use other means of persuasion. I don't understand what you mean when you say "how you say what you say implies a duty." Saying it over and over doesn't change the fact that I don't understand what you mean when you say it. William J Murray
WJM: For clarity: >>Do I have a duty to use fundamental logical principles? (identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction)>> 1: Yes, we do have such a duty as an aspect of right reason. 2: We often fail in that duty, hence we see how we are finite, fallible, error-prone, morally struggling, sometimes stubborn, too often ill-willed etc. That's part of why prudence points to such duties towards reliable warrant that we are making credibly true and reliable knowledge, fact and truth claims. 3: What we cannot help but do, is to appeal to such duties in arguing etc. There is no duty to appeal, we cannot but appeal. >>Can the unavoidable use of those fundamental logical principles logically imply any duties?>> 4: Subject switched. We can and do routinely avoid or blunder in using, first principles of logic. That is not where the inescapability applies. 5: Instead, I rephrase more accurately: Can the unavoidable use of [--> appeal to duties to] those fundamental logical principles [--> as a part of duty to right reason etc] logically imply any duties? 6: the answer is yes, precisely because the appeal to first duties is unavoidable, inescapable, universal: attempts to deny, object or dismiss AND attempts to prove, alike embed appeals to the duties. They are undeniable and unprovable, they are priors of reasoning, arguing etc. Arguing, denying, proving etc hang from those things, not the reverse. 7: This is part of Epictetus' point that you struggled with above:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]
KF kairosfocus
It's difficult for me to think that you are saying that the principles of logic, which all communication, whether one tells the truth or not, necessarily require, as "coeval" with any duty. That just doesn't make sense. So I think that when you refer to an "inescapable first duty," you can't be referring to the inescapable use of the fundamental principles of logic. It must be something else. What, then, can you be referring to? From all you have written about, when you include things like fairness, justice, conscience - all I can imagine is that you think those things are also inescapable aspects of our existence, but yet when your argument uses phrases like "normal" or "widespread, common" human behaviors and internal sensations to make that case, you are implicitly agreeing that these are not, in fact, "inescapable" aspects of human existence. So, I'm baffled about what you're talking about when you say that the things I say "appeal to" some inescapable duty. Neither perspective above makes any sense. William J Murray
WJM, I never said that we have a duty to appeal to first duties of reason. From outset I have consistently pointed out that even objectors cannot but so appeal. You just illustrated this yet again. We cannot but so appeal in general. Those who try to object, deny or dismiss in particular. Also, those who might try to prove . . . indeed, appeal to said duties is structurally built in for the project of attempted proving. So, inescapable, inescapably accurate description of the state of affairs with rational argument etc. So, true, undeniably true and antecedent to proof. Self evident first truths regarding duties of responsible reason. KF kairosfocus
Let's see if we can clear this up. Do I have a duty to use fundamental logical principles? (identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction) Can the unavoidable use of those fundamental logical principles logically imply any duties? William J Murray
KF said:
inescapability of appealing to said duties,
What is inescapable is using or "appealing to" fundamental logic. That is an entirely different thing than a duty. You can conflate those two entirely different things all you want, KF, but that doesn't make them the same thing. William J Murray
Here's another way to look at it: the foundation of logic is the principle of identity. You could say this is the foundation of conventional truth telling; you can also say it is the foundation of conventional lie-telling. Both are intrinsic parts of A=A because A does not equal A is necessarily false. You can't have one without the other; they are two sides of the same coin. So, following your logic, I could say my first duty is to lie-telling, because whenever I lie, the lie appeals to the same principle of identity that truth-telling appeals to - as you so often point out. However, nether claim is coherent because such behavior is unavoidable. Duties cannot refer to unavoidables. William J Murray
WJM, your "you're wrong" in context of objecting is a direct example of the inescapability of appealing to said duties, whether or no we actually do consistently carry them out. Which is a major part of the struggle of virtue. Of course, we can and do fail to live up to what we ought to do, sometimes gleefully, sometimes as failing in the struggle to do better. What we cannot do, is fail to acknowledge that these laws are there and are binding, when we argue! We point the finger and hold up the yardstick, even as we ourselves struggle to consistently do as we expect of the other. KF kairosfocus
F/N: Susan Haack speaks to duty no 1:
What is meant when it ’ s said that we are now “ post-truth ” ? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase denotes “ circumstances in which objective facts are less in ? uential in shaping political debate or public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. ” 15 It gives several examples, among them the ear- liest: “ We, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world ” (1992); and, later, “ in the post-truth era we don ’ t just have truth and lies, but a third category of ambiguous statements that are not exactly the truth but fall short of a lie ” (2004); “ Social media … has [sic] become a post- truth nether world in which readers willingly participate in their own deception because it feels good ” (2016).16 Truth, we ’ re being told, doesn ’ t matter anymore. But, while not everyone who uses the phrase, “ post-truth, ” means exactly the same thing by it, it ’ s clear that, as it is now commonly understood, there are two main strands. First, there is skepti- cism about truthfulness, i.e., a sense that lies, half-truths, economy with the truth, “ spin, ” and the like are now ubiquitous, and that people are increasingly careless both about what they say and about what they believe; second, and implicit in the last of these quotations, there is also despair of the very idea of truth, as if the con- cept itself had been revealed as nothing but an antiquated relic of an earlier age. So I ’ ll begin ( § 2) with some thoughts about the claim that concern for truth is on the decline, and perhaps at a new low; a claim that, sadly, may well be true. Then ( § 3) I ’ ll look at some of the many and various forms that carelessness with the truth may take, and show that, so far from revealing that the concept of truth is seriously problematic or that there is no such thing as objective truth, it simply makes no sense to say that lies, half-truths, etc., are ubiquitous, that statements are frequently made that are not true, that are true only in part, that are only part of the truth, or that pre- sent true claims in such a way as to convey a false impression of what they mean, unless there is such a thing as truth, and a legitimate truth-concept. After that, ( § 4) I ’ ll argue that, of course, there is such a thing as objective truth, and a robust and defensible truth-concept. And finally, ( § 5) I ’ ll suggest some ways to fight against the rising tide of unconcern for truth . . . [Post “ Post-Truth ” : Are We There Yet? THEORIA, 2019, 85, 258 – 275]
She goes on:
No doubt about it: Outright lies, half-truths, economy with the truth, massaged data, simple carelessness with the facts, and the like, are undeniably and alarmingly com- monplace today, especially in political discourse, in advertising, public relations, in universities ’ publicity material, and indeed in just about every area of public life. Of course, there haven ’ t always been advertising agencies, public-relations ? rms, competition among universities for funding, donations, ranking, students, etc. But lies and half-truths are certainly nothing new. The Sophists of ancient Athens might be described as having been mired in “ post-truth ” avant la lettre; in 1625 Francis Bacon wrote that some “ count it a vexation to ? x a belief, ” and some even have “ a corrupt love of the lie itself ” ;17and in 1710 Jonathan Swift wrote of “ the different shapes, sizes and colours of those swarms of lies which buzz around the heads of some people, like ? ies about a horse ’ s ears in summer ” ; and continues, “ if a lie be believ ’ d only for an hour, it has done its work. ” 18
Now, let someone be bold enough to deny or dismiss objective truth and our duty to such. KF kairosfocus
KF, You're wrong. My engaging in an unavoidable behavior cannot be an appeal to a duty, because the concept of any duty requires that I be able to avoid said duty. IOW, you might as well be saying I'm drawing a square circle. William J Murray
PS: If we find agreeing to things at this level such a challenge, do you see why, onward challenges to address things we are even more entangled with become even more of a thorny thicket? kairosfocus
WJM, the duty is to truth, right reason etc. By contrast, the unavoidable behaviour is appealing to the duty to such as a deeply embedded part of arguing, reasoning, quarrelling etc. Indeed, you just appealed to said duties. Acknowledging the built in law is not the challenge, we cannot help that. By contrast:
1 - Accepting that we are not a self serving exception, when that is convenient, yes that is a problem. 2 - Consistently fulfilling the duties even to our own inconvenience, embarrassment and cost, yes, that is a problem -- part of the challenge of virtue. 3 - Acknowledging that we too habitually expect others to know and acknowledge such as governing duties, yes, that seems to be a problem for some. 4 - Recognising that even in objecting to the duties we inadvertently appeal to them (even when case after case is shown) yes that seems to be a problem. 5 - Acknowledging that the attempt to prove them would from outset build in appeals to said duties, yes that too seems to be a challenge. 6 - Admitting onward, that such duties by common consent, expectation and practice are inescapably acknowledged as binding, that seems to be a problem. 7 - Accepting, that the duties are evidently part of the fabric of our rationality and rational communication as why they are inescapable, yes a definite problem. 8 - Admitting that the duties are inescapable, pervasive, antecedent to proof and reason as part of the framework of what rational responsible reason and attendant behaviours such as arguing are, that is a problem. 9 - Admitting also, that the duties are undeniable, unprovable, part of the fabric that makes up proof attempts and denials alike, so undeniably and self-evidently true, maybe the biggest problem of all.
But then, part of the context of such duties is that we are to be truthful, think straight, be charitable, be fair, just and prudent, all of which are deep challenges to achieve consistently. One non-problem, nine problems. KF kairosfocus
Jerry, KF is not only not right, he can't be right, as I have shown. It isn't a matter of opinion. In exactly the same manner as there are no square circles, unavoidable behaviors cannot appeal to a duty. William J Murray
PS: Part of the challenge lies in serious candidacy to be a necessary being. Such a serious candidate -- flying spaghetti monsters need not apply -- will either be impossible of being (as a square circle is so impossible) or else actual. That is, you either have to warrant that God the eternal independent being is not a serious candidate to be eternal or else that God as understood by ethical theism is self-contradictory in core characteristics and cannot be in any possible world. Such, in a situation where, after Plantinga's free will defense [as opposed to theodicy], the logical form of the problem of evil has collapsed. PPS: Yes, logic of being, aka ontology, addresses possible modes of being once crossed with possible worlds speak. Impossible vs possible of being. The former, as core proposed characteristics stand in mutual contradiction as with a square circle. The latter, as coherent entities or states of affairs that would be present were some possible world W instantiated. Of these, some are contingent, present in W but not in near neighbour W' as a factor A is absent from the latter. A is an enabling on/off -- necessary in the causal sense -- causal factor for the contingent being. Think, oxidiser, fuel, heat, combustion chain reaction for a fire. By contrast a necessary being is feasible and is present in all worlds W. That implies, part of the framework for any world to exist. Which immediately points to the eternal, independent being God as creator as a serious candidate. kairosfocus
VL, again, strawman tied to refusing to acknowledge the distinction between two arguments. Let us shorten to AI and AII. The direct line of observation and recognition of a self evident truth is AI. It is not -- repeat, NOT -- a world roots argument though it points toward it. We observe ourselves and others as rational, responsible, significantly free creatures . . . free, on pain of undermining the credibility of reason, warrant, knowledge etc. We focus the pattern of reasoning, arguing, quarelling. It is clear that we act as bound and expecting others to be bound by law tied to rationality and freedom; first duties as I summarised. That is massively obvious, we try to show one another in error in argument, error in respect of fact, logic, assumptions, credibility of sources, etc. In quarrels, this intensifies into trying to show one another in the wrong, especially as regards fairness and justice. Indeed, a lot of law is about that, tort. Somehow, we find ourselves bound to avoid error and wrong, as testified to by the compass-voice of conscience. Such is a big part of human motivation. More specifically, we can target what is objectionable: being - untruthful, - unreasonable/illogical, - imprudent (including, holding what is inadequately warranted as claimed knowledge), - unconscionable, - unneighbourly, - unfair, - unjust. - Etc. (yardstick, not exhaustive) Turned around, we find ourselves duty-bound as rational, responsible, significantly free creatures. Responsible -- duty/ought-bound -- towards truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour [cf. Golden Rule and Categorical Imperative], fairness, justice, etc. Yes, we too often find ourselves before the bar of conscience about such, we too often falter and fail, but we find ourselves in moral struggle over the gap betwen the is of what we may do and the oughts in these duties. For specific instance, when we argue and/or quarrel, we find ourselves . . . observe the patterns above and elsewhere . . . habitually appealing to said duties as we seek rhetorical traction. When we care about something, we expect recognition of a deep built in sense of obligation under the identified lines. That is already striking. But, it is commonplace, pervasive. Howbeit, there is more. What is even more peculiar is that those making objections to the binding nature of such expectations, ALSO, invariably, appeal to the said first duties of reason. Which obviously is self-referential and undermining. The above, the previous thread and the general course of argument and quarelling extends to those trying to object to the binding nature of said duties. Strange but well warranted. Especially, as all that would be required to overturn it, would be to give a case of responsible persuasive argument that does not appeal to duties or object to real or imagined infractions against them. Even fallacies pivot on said appeals. Worse, the same inescapability appears with attempts to prove these claimed duties to be accurate to our circumstances and states of affairs as rational, responsible creatures. Even the attempt to prove starts with, we need a solid, credibly true start-point and we need to reason per canons of logic to arrive at a "sound" or "cogent" conclusion or a "credible" result or a "fair point/comment" etc. In court, a "just" ruling, one that duly balances rights, freedoms, responsibilities. Note, the aura of those words, their magnetic field of oughtness. So, the very structure of attempted proof is riddled with the antecedent assumed duty to these specific obligations. Conclusion, the first duties cannot be proved as they are built into the fabric of proof. They cannot be skeptically dismissed or objected to because they are built into the fabric of persuasive argument. The skeptic or objector, after all, rejects claims to knowledge as . . . lacking adequate warrant. The would be prove-er, tries to show no, there is adequate warrant. Both, implicitly appeal to, and cannot but appeal to, said duties. Further conclusion: they are inescapable, antecedent to reasoning, proving, disproving, arguing, quarrelling etc. They can neither be proved or disproved because they are priors of both. These, then, are inescapable first truths, self-evident on pain of undermining rational reflection and discourse. And, frankly, such was patent from the outset. The objector is manifestly forced to pay homage to what s/he would dismiss, the one who would prove cannot step outside so that he can prove them as conclusions. These lie at the root of argument and of duty, so too of law. Law, at core, is indeed the highest reason, pointing to duty and due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. That core is indeed built in and testified to by sound conscience and by prudence as well as by reason. It is coeval with our humanity, with our nature as rational, responsible, significantly free, self-moved creatures. Rightly understood, these are built-in laws of our inescapably morally governed nature. Cicero and those he summarised were right. Cicero, again -- and note how he goes on to bridge to AII:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [--> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [--> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
Clearly, Cicero makes an inference to some form of ethical theism, likely in a Stoic sense. It is there in the root sources that sparked my thoughts years ago, why? I believe it is this stage of argument that is at the root of persistent objections. There is a common assumption in our day that theistic proofs are all hopeless failures, and that this is a form of the moral argument to God. Actually, it is primarily an argument to self-evidence regarding built in law. Yes it is reasonable to ask onward, what sort of world adequately explains such. Hence, the note I normally insert in this clip:
[--> this [Ciceronian point] points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]
I think the logical problem is that AII does not work as an implication from AI, it is an inference to best explanation challenge to ponder what sort of reality explains a world with creatures that are rational and responsible. So, the classic shift from p => q, p is unobjectionable, so q to no q is unacceptable so, for whatever reason, ~q so ~p does not work. That is, an explanation is not a forward implication argument, p => q, p, so q. It is instead an invitation and challenge to examine candidate p's p1, p2, p3, . . . pn, to see which best explains q. Especially so, in a context where the implication term is about cause-effect bonds. AI is about q not about p. We exist as contingent creatures in a going concern world, with certain characteristics as discussed through AI. We are a strange sort of creature, what best explains us, given Euthyphro and Hume et al? And no, the option that evil and so by contrast good is vacuous is not on the table. Not after a century marked by Hitler, Stalin and Mao, etc. My mother is still alive, my remaining aunts and uncles too, they saw all three alive and in terrifying power. We do need an adequate world-root capable of bridging the is-ought gap, and from Hume the only locus of such a fusion is a world root that simultaneously bridges is and ought. That root is not credibly a past-infinite extension of finite-stages of a quasi-physical "sub-verse" that cumulatively lead to this sub-cosmos with us in it. That's because -- whether it is explicit or implicit -- the transfinite cannot be spanned in successive finite stages. Our temporal-causal order points to a different order of being, necessary being at the world root. Being that is not only necessary (embedded in the fabric for any possible world) but is capable of causing a world. And that side argument has been hammered out for years here at UD. We need a finitely remote, necessary being world root, and such a root will also need to be an adequate root for oughtness. We can list candidates, beyond the one already highlighted as inadequate, an infinite causal-temporal past of the physical world and more specifically, a sub-verse. Such a list, with the moral root constraint (and recall, we have to remain as rational, responsible, significantly free creatures or we self-referentially undermine the rational credibility required to argue) poses a bill of requisites. The root of morality must be inherently good and simultaneously utterly wise. If not the former, not an adequate root for ought, if not the latter, incapable of articulating and expressing the ought with required credibility. So, we come to a familiar figure as candidate to beat: the inherently good and utterly wise creator-God, a necessary, maximally great being. If you have a superior alternative on comparative difficulties, kindly state it ______ and explain why per comparative difficulties ______ Prediction, hard to do. KF kairosfocus
re 993, to Jerry. First, just FYI: The phrase "root of reality: is KF's term, which I have adopted in response. It is at the heart (or should we say, root) of the assertions and arguments he makes in the OP and onward. Also, at least for me the issue is not whether there is some creative power that accounts for the existence of the universe; for the laws which make interesting things happen in it, including the existence of life; for the fact that mathematics can describe it so well; and for consciousness and some associated level of free will. I accept that. However, there are further issues upon which we are disagreeing. Can human beings really know anything about this creative power, or are our religious and metaphysical stories about it just narratives we have made up to explain what we really cannot know? Does this creative power takes an active, conscious, caring interest in human beings, or are we on our own, so to speak, making human beings what we are through the choices we make? Is there any transcendent connection between us and this creative power, or does our consciousness and our mind reach only within us until we die and then its individuality is gone. Just positing a superior intelligence (your phrase) or creative power (my phrase) in itself leaves many unanswered, and in my opinion, unanswerable, ontological questions. Viola Lee
And the ironic thing is, KF
Is probably right. This is an Intelligence Design site which concludes the source of the universe, life and humans is a superior intelligence. One possibility is that it is a single intelligence for all three and the root of reality or the root of our existence. The phrase “root of reality” is popular on this thread, haven been used over 70 times. jerry
VL, And the ironic thing is, KF probably thinks the same about us. William J Murray
Quite. And I am aware that I am somewhat perversely bothered by it. Viola Lee
This appears to be a cognitive blind spot for KF. William J Murray
It is an appeal to reason. BUT IT IS NOT AN APPEAL TO A DUTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROOT OF REALITY. Viola Lee
VL, your repeated but that does not mean, is an appeal to duties to reason. That in itself shows how inescapable they are. KF kairosfocus
Viola Lee, since we don’t know the source of our ability to reason, I could just as easily start from the premise that it is a conditioned response. Therefore, Kairosfocus’ arguments are an appeal to reason, which we know to be a conditioned response. In other words, Kairosfocus’ “appeal to...” is just a circular argument based on an unproven premise. Steve Alten2
Do you not understand this KF:
YES, I do you use reason to try to describe what I see as true, I do try to follow my conscience to do what I think is right, I do believe in furthering the interests of my neighbor, I do believe in justice for all. But THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THOSE ACTIONS COME FROM A DUTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROOT OF REALITY.
Viola Lee
VL, do you not see how your but that does not mean also appeals to our duties to reason? KF kairosfocus
Kairosfocus, you continue to ignore the possibility that our “morality” is the outcome of conditioned responses. Education, feedback, reinforcement, etc from the time we are born. As we grow and our ability to reason improves, the ones that we can use reason to confirm their value become even more entrenched. Values like being honest, being respectful, avoiding violence, not stealing, etc. Inevitably, we are also indoctrinated to accept certain moral values that can’t be easily justified by objective reason. I realize that you don’t like the implications of a moral system that is based on conditioned responses, but it better explains the shifts in societal morality that we see across different cultures, and over time, than blaming this on human ‘defects’. Steve Alten2
I am saying that your insistence that your perspective is the right one is wrong.
You don’t know that. I know there are other opinions but whose to say they are all wrong and Kf is not right or essentially right. I don’t agree with Kf all the time and I am not really sure exactly all of what he is saying so I cannot disagree with him here. But a lots sounds reasonable. I said he talks in code and is very cryptic so it’s hard to know exactly everything being implied. There isn’t an editor in the world who wouldn’t send Kf’s comments back for major changes but not because they were wrong. jerry
KF, you say over and over and over that I "implicitly appeal to duties to truth." YES, I do you use reason to try to describe what I see as true, I do try to follow my conscience to do what I think is right, I do believe in furthering the interests of my neighbor, I do believe in justice for all. But THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THOSE ACTIONS COME FROM A DUTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROOT OF REALITY. (Sorry I've taken to shouting, but maybe that will get you attention.) Also,at 980, point 12, you write, " Now, what we can see is that the duties coeval with our rational nature are evidently part of what we are as rational and responsible. That would in itself be suggestive of their end and their source." No that is what YOU see, not what WE see, and it does not suggest to me what it suggests to you. That is your philosophical interpretation, not everyone's. That means that every time anyone uses reason, etc. you take that as evidence that you are right, because that fits your interpretative filter. But it doesn't work that way. There are other perspectives on this situation. Note: I am not saying that you, or anyone else, shouldn't have a perspective that they use to understand the world and to live by. I am saying that your insistence that your perspective is the right one is wrong. That is why your continual ""implicitly appeal to duties to truth" idea is so irritatingly meaningless as an argument. Last, you write, "10: I also did a mechanical search on the phrase you cited in this thread and the previous, coming up empty both times, “inescapable at the root of reality” — is that your summary or what?" In your oft-quoted statement (see 930 for an example), you write,
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident.
and later in the same quote
The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
That is, your position is that the inescapable duties and comes from our roots in God, "the maximally great being at the root of reality." It seems to me that "inescapable at the root of reality" is an sufficient short paraphrase of this aspect of your position. Perhaps "inescapably from the roots of reality" would be better. But it's certain that the basic idea is correct, as stated in your own quotes. Viola Lee
KF said:
I have already noted on major worldviews options, pointing out that ought, duty can only be adequately sourced at root of reality, on pain of is-is then poof ought-ought. That leads to a bill of requisites including being inherently good and utterly wise.
By "adequately," I think KF means "in order to avoid moral relativism or moral subjectivism." IOW, to avoid moral subjectivism/relativism, an ought must be an is in and of itself, or at least trace back to an ought that is an is. Thus, "root of reality;" thus, it becomes necessary to marry "existential unavoidables" with "first duties." Unfortunately, that can't be done. You can only postulate it then make an appeal to consequences or near-universal human behavior in an attempt to warrant it as a sound premise. Which is the same kind of argument KF makes against MRT. The ramifications of the foundational logic is indisputable in both cases. William J Murray
VL, >>When I wrote to KF, “The recurring issue is your claim that conscience is necessary and inescapably part of the root of reality”, you replied “As was pointed out already and linked, I have made no such claim, this is a strawman caricature.”>> 1: So far, accurate. Note, you implicitly appeal to duties to truth. >>And yet the post you link to says, [KF:] We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc. >> 2: This is expansion, not a contrast. Note, you are again implying duty to truth. >>The distinction you make between what I said and what you said (which I see as an attempt to understand you, not a “strawman”) is that most people have a normal conscience that, but some are “defective”.>> 3: Not so, ONE distinction is not THE distinction. Here, I point to our contingency as creatures and the reality that many are deficient or damaged or handicapped or disabled in one way or another. Damaged conscience is a thing. So, a dysfunctional conscience no more characterises a particular human as not being human than being short of an arm or leg. 4: However, conscience is part of our normal kit so to speak, so much so that even if a Hitler were not to feel compunction about murder, he should have noted the general awareness. In any case he knew that murder is inherently criminal, and knew himself to be a wrongdoer even if his benumbed conscience felt no pangs of guilt. 5: I know a former JDF soldier who in the course of duty had to shoot someone dead, and was there as he breathed his last, calling out to his mother. She had to go through counselling, even with a justified shooting in defence of life and society. That is what a normal conscience would trigger. >>So what is binding (your word) and “inescapable at the root of reality” is our duty to use our conscience in response other duties such as “truth, right reason, prudence, fairness, justice, neighbour.”>> 6: What is inescapable in the first instance, you illustrated yet again. In what is an argument of objection, you could not but appeal to the first duties, as you sought rhetorical traction. Those appealed to first duties include duty to sound conscience which indeed is sound as it reflects the range of duties. 7: Conscience, like that of Hitler's, can be desensitised, warped and can become unsound. Indeed, on the second occasion of a justified killing, our soldier had a much less sharp reaction. That opens up the danger of not caring about life. To quote two youths I found myself walking behind one fine Saturday morning, "him just cut a gal throat, ah nuh nutten." I got out of there as fast as I could. 8: What is inescapable and at root level in our reasoning, is appeal to first duties. 9: That inescapability of appealing to first duties points to their truth and self-evidence. They cannot be denied without implicitly appealing to their binding call to duty, and they cannot be proved as the attempt also inevitably appeals to them, starting with proofs try to show something is established as truth and in proving appeal to logic and to warrant. 10: I also did a mechanical search on the phrase you cited in this thread and the previous, coming up empty both times, “inescapable at the root of reality” -- is that your summary or what? >>But how do you know – what argument do you have – that the root of reality cares one bit about whether we are prudent, fair, interested in justice, and otherwise use our conscience to help guide us.>> 11: H'mm, do you see the appeal to said duties there? 12: Now, what we can see is that the duties coeval with our rational nature are evidently part of what we are as rational and responsible. That would in itself be suggestive of their end and their source. 13: For instance, if they are a part of the genetically, socially and personally conditioned delusions that get us to cooperate . . . a paraphrase of a noted view . . . then that implies grand delusion and undermines rationality itself. We can safely set that notion aside. Likewise, ideas that these are just accidents or have poofed up from nothing. 14: Taking up that these principles are real and are part of rationality, that implies that whatever is source of a world in which such creatures are, is adequate causal ground for rational responsible freedom and has used that capability. That is strong evidence of intent and linked concern. >> Why do you think we have duties coming from the root of reality to exhibit those qualities.>> 15: I have already noted on major worldviews options, pointing out that ought, duty can only be adequately sourced at root of reality, on pain of is-is then poof ought-ought. That leads to a bill of requisites including being inherently good and utterly wise. 16: Meanwhile, your alternative explanation that avoids serious comparative difficulties dilemmas is ________ ? >>Why do you think it is self-evident that those are aspects of the root of reality?>> 17: What, first duties? The self evidence involved is that we have claimed truths that cannot be successfully denied without appealing to them. Similarly, we cannot attempt to prove without appealing to same. Thus, first, pervasive principles of rationality, i.e. self evident. 18: I suppose we can then infer that such are aspects of the roots of a world with creatures like us, but it is a secondary argument to say such. The primary argument is as stated, we cannot argue denial without appealing, we cannot try to prove without already appealing to them so first, undeniable, inescapable, self evident truths. KF kairosfocus
KF said:
...we find ourselves appealing to said duties,
This is logically incoherent, as I've demonstrated. You're conflating "existential unavoidables" with "duties," which are irreconcilable concepts. William J Murray
This is the basic is-ought gap; an is cannot imply an ought. For an ought to be objective, it must exist on it's own as an "is." This means there must be an objective goal, or else oughts cannot be objective in nature, because oughts require a goal; objective oughts require an objective goal. Existential unavoidables cannot lead you there because they are the root of any possible goal because they are the same in any possible world. This is the limit of the Foundationalist aspect of your argument and the beginning of Coherentism, where you make the case for a well-warranted objective goal that would entail objective oughts. Is your case that there is a particular objective goal "well-warranted?" No, because you try to argue it from that which cannot, even in principle, be used to support it. However, you make a well-warranted case that your particular ship of state goal is the best goal when considering common human desires, preferences and behaviors, and the history of social structure outcomes in terms of serving those commonalities, such as survival, social coherence, happiness, freedoms, etc. Conversely, it's not the best goal if you choose different things to consider when building a ship of state. William J Murray
Viola Lee “ You make it sound like associating your philosophy with your Christianity is an insult. I don’t mean it that way.“ Of course his philosophy is affected by his beliefs. That is the case for all of us. Steve Alten2
WJM, I have always spoken of us as responsibly, rationally free. That means we can refuse or turn from duties. What we cannot do in arguing, is avoid appealing to and/or implying first duties. We don't have to argue, we don't have to think, we don't have to quarrel, we can choose to be silent etc. But once we seek to gain rhetorical traction and persuade, choosing to argue or quarrel, we find ourselves appealing to said duties, thus implying their governing role. Even, when the argument is an attempted objection to said duties or their inescapability. As has been shown case after case, again and again. KF kairosfocus
KF said:
The definition of natural law you offer is not apt. ...... We have another level of law, duties that are built in. We can flout or ignore them, but not without damaging result. But that is not the point, it is that we see an inescapability of appealing to such in our reasoning, arguing and quarrelling. Even objections cannot get away from such appeal.
You are conflating two entirely different kinds of things: the avoidable and the unavoidable. Your own examples make this clear; there is a difference between inescapable physical laws and our options available under those physical laws. Our options only extend to the point where the physical law cannot be avoided. Duties can only extend to where options are available; they cannot extend into the arena of the existentially unavoidable. Yet, you keep repeating that because I do the unavoidable, it implies a duty. Gravitation does not imply how one should build a house or how one should walk. The only thing that can imply an "ought" is a goal; the only thing that can entail an "ought" is the existence of options available in service of, or in contradiction to, a goal. Existential unavoidables do not entail options. Existential unavoidables do not represent any goal. I literally cannot be "appealing to a duty" when I engage in unavoidable, fundamental forms of my behaviors, words or thought. "Duties" and "existential unavoidables" are necessary two irreconcilably different kinds of things which cannot, logically speaking, entail or be part of or imply the other. William J Murray
Here's the rest of 973: i wasn't finished and got interrupted: re 966: When I wrote to KF, "The recurring issue is your claim that conscience is necessary and inescapably part of the root of reality", you replied "As was pointed out already and linked, I have made no such claim, this is a strawman caricature." And yet the post you link to says,
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc.
The distinction you make between what I said and what you said (which I see as an attempt to understand you, not a "strawman") is that most people have a normal conscience that, but some are "defective". So what is binding (your word) and "inescapable at the root of reality" is our duty to use our conscience in response other duties such as "truth, right reason, prudence, fairness, justice, neighbour." But how do you know - what argument do you have - that the root of reality cares one bit about whether we are prudent, fair, interested in justice, and otherwise use our conscience to help guide us. Why do you think we have duties coming from the root of reality to exhibit those qualities. Why do you think it is self-evident that those are aspects of the root of reality? You point to what is commonplace, and note that there are deviations from normal, all which is true. That doesn't mean that the root of reality is responsible for, the source of, or is in any other way involved in the choices we make and the actions we take. You assume that there is a God at the root of reality: "a Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God…" That is why you think we have these duties. You state that this a philosophical position, not a religious one. Even as a philosophical position, however, it is a beginning premise, not the conclusion of an argument. You can't go back to the inescapable duties as an argument for God when you think the inescapable duties are from the roots of reality that is God. Issue two: I also find in interesting that you write things like "So, you are venturing into slander at this point" by saying that your philosophy is grounded in your Christian faith, and that "This is now insistent false accusation intended to taint through insinuation of dishonesty and/or gross defect of ability to reason." You make it sound like associating your philosophy with your Christianity is an insult. I don't mean it that way. Viola Lee
re 966: When I wrote to KF, "The recurring issue is your claim that conscience is necessary and inescapably part of the root of reality", you replied "As was pointed out already and linked, I have made no such claim, this is a strawman caricature." And yet the post you link to says,
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc.
Viola Lee
Morality as a culturally conditioned response. https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response Steve Alten2
WJM:
My particular argument is: even though you have the best blueprint, it has a gap that cannot be – ultimately – logically reconciled: the gap between “natural law,” in terms of “unavoidable existential necessities” and oughts, or duties and “rights.” When you say that how I necessarily, unavoidable act, write, talk and think implies a “duty” to an unavoidable, existential necessity, you have made a fundamentally incoherent claim.
The definition of natural law you offer is not apt. A mechanical necessity of the world or even what is imposed by logic of being (Math stuff esp) are at a different level from laws that govern or regulate but do not determine the actions of rational, responsible, self-moved creatures. Water will boil at 100 Celsius at 1 atmosphere pressure, 760 mm Hg. A ball released initially falls at acceleration 9.8 N/kg. A die tossed, tumbling and sensitively dependent on initial and intervening circumstances, exhibits flat randomness, if fair. 3 + 2 = 5. Those are determined or determined to be stochastic per some law or other. We have another level of law, duties that are built in. We can flout or ignore them, but not without damaging result. But that is not the point, it is that we see an inescapability of appealing to such in our reasoning, arguing and quarrelling. Even objections cannot get away from such appeal. Inescapable, true, self-evident. I add, not an existential necessity, there are possible worlds without particular creatures like this, and that would include our world before we were formed. Where, we have people with defective minds and consciences who do not sense or cannot make sense of such principles. However, on the whole, key parts of soundly functioning human nature. So much so that an intelligent but conscience crippled person such as Hitler, brought before Nuremberg could have been told, did you need a formally passed regulation to know that murder is evil, wrong, inherently criminal? KF kairosfocus
KF, is it impossible for you to separate the idea of a "duty" from the idea of an "unavoidable, existential necessity?" Because you keep referring to them as if they are inseparable ideas. Let me try it this way. Do you agree with this statement: Any duty must entail a behavior that is avoidable. William J Murray
My particular argument, KF, is not intended to undermine your blueprint. I agree with the blueprint as best, most effective blueprint for the kind of ship (society) you want to build, that would be seaworthy considering the sea (ERT ) it is built to sail on. My particular argument is: even though you have the best blueprint, it has a gap that cannot be - ultimately - logically reconciled: the gap between "natural law," in terms of "unavoidable existential necessities" and oughts, or duties and "rights." When you say that how I necessarily, unavoidable act, write, talk and think implies a "duty" to an unavoidable, existential necessity, you have made a fundamentally incoherent claim. A duty, by its very nature, requires that I have the capacity to fail in performing that duty. It is logically irreconcilable that (1) I must be able to fail in my duty, or it cannot be said to be a duty, and (2) I cannot fail in any way to act or think according to unavoidable, existential necessity. Thus, the aspects of anything that I say or do that are unavoidable cannot, logically speaking, represent a duty. Even so, it's not like any significant number of people in such a society built on this premise is going to realize this, or even realizing it, is going to care that much or try to undermine the society because of it. It's still the best ship for the job, even if it is logically flawed. William J Murray
WJM, yes the following is absurd:
one can have a duty to behave in a way that cannot be avoided even if one tried is probably one of the most absurd ideas I’ve ever come across.
No prize for guessing why. It is a strawman caricature. Manifestly, a free, responsible, rational agent can choose to do or reject duties, no matter how well founded. Although, not without consequences, especially the cumulative impact on the good ship civilisation. What I have stated, repeated, explained, corrected regarding and more, over and over again, is differen. Repeat, different. Namely, that in our reasoning, arguing, communicating persuasively, quarrelling, we find that we cannot but appeal to the generally acknowledged first duties, which I took time to list. A list that builds on what struck me from Cicero. And yes, generally acknowledged. Truthfulness, reasonableness, prudence, heeding sound conscience, doing good by neighbour, being fair and being just are not exactly dubious resorts of some idiot on a soap box off in a corner. I particularly noted from the outset, see OP and the linked summary clip:
FIRST DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE REASON We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident . . .
The logic is, inescapable even for those putting up an argument of objection to said duties, they are forced to appeal to them to give rhetorical traction to their claims. As I have taken time to show over and over on cases above and previously. Indeed, why are you objecting ". . . one of the most absurd ideas I’ve ever come across"? H'mm, could it be because you are assuming and appealing to our known duty to logic and the like? As in, an appeal to the second listed first duty, right reason? And with implication of need to warrant, i.e. an appeal to duty no 3, prudence? With the background, that what is a self contradictory claim cannot be true . . . i.e. duty 1, to truth given the principle of explosion [an aspect of duty 2]? That inescapability is again shown from your own objection. My onward conclusion follows this line of reasoning: inescapable so universal in acts of reasoning, so true and a first principle, one that cannot be denied or objected to without the absurdity of appealing to what one hopes to overthrow. Likewise, by that universality, unprovable as the attempted proof itself cannot but imply appeals to said duties. (The case of Epictetus and your failed objection by parody speak to this.) So, instead recognised as a self-evident first truth and used as framework for our onward reasoning. I fail to see how this can be so hard to recognise, from even a bit of self reflection on one's own arguments. However, the objection I cited shows what may be happening instead, a strawman caricature has been substituted and is what is being objected to. A strawman that for plausibility depends on the influence of certain modern and ultra modern schools of thought. So, let us note, the actual argument is not the strawman. KF kairosfocus
KF @ 963, I understand your argument. Moreover, I would say that under the existential premise that 99.99%+ of the people in this world operate under (ERT,) I agree with your "ship of state" argument. I agree that the principles you have laid out. Under the ERT premise, if you do not have agreed-upon, at least substantively, moral duties, which are tethered to something that can be held as objective, any ship of state other than lawless oligarchy will sink. I understand this part of your argument; it doesn't matter if it is the "will of God" or existential unavoidables or the supreme power of the government, subjective morality cannot be the blueprint by which you build that ship because it cannot produce a seaworthy ship of any sort; even a lawless oligarchy has the "moral system" of "might makes right." Building anything that endures and meets the specifications for the purpose of what is built requires a coherent blueprint that is followed by all those who are involved in building it (same analogy in essence as the "mutinous crew.") So, your question about "should we" attach the blueprint of a society to "natural law" is about finding a concept as solid and irrefutable as A=A to refer to when designing and building the ship, even if there is no way to make the case that such oughts are attached to A=A, or are< attached to God, or are< attached to a supreme government or "holy Emperor." Again, here, under our existential premise, I agree with you that "natural law," as a concept, provides an incontrovertible conceptual (not necessarily logical) basis for any moral system that doesn't depend on subjective beliefs whatsoever, or any ruler or government, or even any concept of God. Even if the nature of "duty" logically precludes their attachment to the existentially necessary and unavoidable; that doesn't mean you cannot attach a moral system to them anyway. It can obviously be done because it's been done. The logic ultimately fails, but then it's not like people operate rationally in most things, much less attempt to logically examine these things in fine detail. So, the question remains: should we? Well, it depends on the kind of ship you're trying to build and where you want it to take you. If you want to build a democratic republic where the power ultimately lies in the people (inasmuch as they are willing to hold the power,) the moral framework must put the individual in a moral landscape like gravity; it applies equally to everyone and is not generated from any monarch, government, ruling class or religious perspective. If that's your goal, then I would say that what you have outlined and argued for is the best way forward, under the ERT existential premise, whether or not it is ultimately possible to demonstrate universal conscience or that our duties are, or even logically can be, attached to unavoidable existential necessities. William J Murray
VL, 961: >>The recurring issue is your claim that conscience is necessary and inescapably part of the root of reality.>> 1: As was pointed out already and linked, I have made no such claim, this is a strawman caricature. 2: I have pointed out that we are radically contingent: we are born, we live some decades, we die and are often buried. Some have various handicaps or defects of body and mind, the latter including that some have damaged or defective consciences. 3: So, there is no necessity of existence in the conscience, however it is a massively evident fact and feature of the conscious life of a mature, normal person. So, those with a defect here should refer to those that are in a more normal state, here I point to the likes of a Hitler or Stalin or Mao, or individuals and groups at a lower level with similar tendencies. 4: What I have said is that duty to sound conscience is inescapable, part of the framework of similarly inescapable first duties of reason. Where, soundness is informed by those other duties, I have used the metaphor of a faceted jewel; each facet acts in part through the effect of the others and in turn contributes to them. This is the holograph-microcosm principle. 5: Indeed, it is the voice or compass-needle of conscience which motivates us in our responsiveness to duties to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness, justice, neighbour. As we are all familiar with. Such contributes materially to the rhetorical traction of argument. 6: Notice, your own objections again and again pivot on these duties, you are manifestly unable to compose an argument of objection without appealing to the binding nature of what you object to. 7: Where, there is an existential component to conscience, it is a core part of a normally functioning human being. We are conscious, embodied, mammalian [coming in two complementary sexes, with females having mammary glands], rational and conscience guided, but finite and fallible, morally struggling creatures. Some have various defects but that is the general pattern of rational animality. Where animal is actually a reference to the self-moved, reflexively active creature, living and ensouled, as Plato argued in The Laws Bk X. >> The second issue is my pointing out that ultimately your assertion>> 8: I have pointed out that ARGUMENT II is a proposal in the context of comparative difficulties across live option worldviews, and that what follows is not specifically judaeo-christian. I am pointing to ethical theism and the God who commonly comes up in philosophy, not any particular religious tradition. 9: That coming up goes back to Plato, who obviously was a pagan philosopher hardly likely to have been strongly influenced by the hebraic tradition. Later we find in Cicero, 55 - 54 BC:
, On the Republic, Bk 3: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with [--> our morally governed] nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it [--> as universally binding core of law], and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people [--> as binding, universal, coeval with our humanity], and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. [--> sound conscience- guided reason will point out the core] And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 55 - 54 BC
10: It seems you find it difficult to accept that I am speaking i/l/o the force of Cicero's remarks in De Legibus, so let me pause to clip IEP on Cicero:
Marcus Tullius Cicero was born on January 3, 106 B.C.E. and was murdered on December 7, 43 B.C.E. His life coincided with the decline and fall of the Roman Republic, and he was an important actor in many of the significant political events of his time, and his writings are now a valuable source of information to us about those events. He was, among other things, an orator, lawyer, politician, and philosopher. Making sense of his writings and understanding his philosophy requires us to keep that in mind. He placed politics above philosophical study; the latter was valuable in its own right but was even more valuable as the means to more effective political action. The only periods of his life in which he wrote philosophical works were the times he was forcibly prevented from taking part in politics. While Cicero is currently not considered an exceptional thinker, largely on the (incorrect) grounds that his philosophy is derivative and unoriginal, in previous centuries he was considered one of the great philosophers of the ancient era, and he was widely read well into the 19th century. Probably the most notable example of his influence is St. Augustine’s claim that it was Cicero’s Hortensius (an exhortation to philosophy, the text of which is unfortunately lost) that turned him away from his sinful life [--> he had rejected the Christian influence of his mother, Monica and was wandering across the world of ideas and indulgences of the flesh, a professional rhetor] and towards philosophy and ultimately to God . . .
11: Here in, condensed form is the text that struck me and led me to the reflections summarised in the OP:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [--> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [--> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
[--> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]
This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
12: You will note that first law, first duty issues are central, but the puzzle of explaining a world with a responsible, rational creature with self-moved freedom points to world roots issues. I put on the table an option ethical theism. If you can successfully pose and address on comparative difficulties an option that does not collapse into nihilism and does not sacrifice unity and diversity, while also leaving room for such first law to be binding -- as well not falling into grand delusion -- feel free to expound: _____ 13: I note, such invitations have been repeatedly made, but have not been taken up. Simply a link would be good enough at this stage. >> that stems from “our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God…”>> 14: Note, God as philosophical entity and serious candidate necessary being world root [as opposed to say flying spaghetti monster parodies . . . ], not God as expounded in a religious tradition. >> is basically a religious view>> 15: Demonstrated false and directly testified as not what is at stake, with evidence. So, you are venturing into slander at this point, as follows . . . >> that is grounded, behind the scenes so to speak, in your Christian faith.>> 16: This is now insistent false accusation intended to taint through insinuation of dishonesty and/or gross defect of ability to reason. 17: I suggest, you would be well advised to walk back from this line of argument by insinuation. KF PS: I clip from IEP and comment:
Western concepts of God have ranged from the detached transcendent demiurge of Aristotle to the pantheism of Spinoza. Nevertheless, much of western thought about God has fallen within some broad form of theism. Theism is the view that there is a God which is the creator and sustainer of the universe and is unlimited with regard to knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), extension (omnipresence), and moral perfection. [ --> hence, ethical theism] Though regarded as sexless, God has traditionally been referred to by the masculine pronoun. Concepts of God in philosophy are entwined with concepts of God in religion. [--> yes, but obviously, phil is not bound to any particular tradition, it is free to ponder, adapt, abstract, discuss, conclude, hence from Ari to Spinoza etc] This is most obvious in figures like Augustine and Aquinas, who sought to bring more rigor and consistency to concepts found in religion. [--> Augustine REJECTED Christianity and in the end was forced back as he saw alternative after alternative fail as he thought them through] Others, like Leibniz and Hegel, interacted constructively and deeply with religious concepts. Even those like Hume and Nietzsche, who criticized the concept of God, dealt with religious concepts. [--> that is they dealt with a concept of God] While Western philosophy has interfaced most obviously with Christianity, Judaism and Islam have had some influence. The orthodox forms of all three religions have embraced theism, though each religion has also yielded a wide array of other views. [--> people are free so they will think as they will] Philosophy has shown a similar variety. For example, with regard to the initiating cause of the world, Plato and Aristotle held God to be the crafter of uncreated matter. [--> notice, this is not the creator God but the forming demiurge or the like] Plotinus regarded matter as emanating from God. Spinoza, departing from his judaistic roots, held God to be identical with the universe, while Hegel came to a similar view by reinterpreting Christianity. [--> pantheism or panentheism] Issues related to Western concepts of God include the nature of divine attributes and how they can be known, if or how that knowledge can be communicated, the relation between such knowledge and logic, the nature of divine causality, and the relation between the divine and the human will.
kairosfocus
Kf needs an interpreter. He writes in extremely long sentences/paragraphs often repetitive, rambling that are information dense, coded and cryptic. His conclusions are often obvious but attacked because they are unpopular to some. He is not always right and then defends without right reason some of his positions. But generally he is right on but just not in simple declarative sentences. jerry
The idea that one can have a duty to behave in a way that cannot be avoided even if one tried is probably one of the most absurd ideas I've ever come across. Duties must be about things that provide the opportunity for failure. Unavoidable existential necessities do not proved this opportunity; they cannot be what any duty ultimately refers to. KF's worldview on duties is incoherent at the outset because of this. Unavoidable existential necessities cannot lead to, or point to, any duties because a duty requires the capacity to avoid or fail in one's duty. Nobody can fail what is unavoidably, existentially necessary. William J Murray
WJM, There are of course several major issues on the table, but your cross-complaint on epistemic justification and foundationalism requires some attention. My first note is that metaphors are often quite instructive, reflecting how arguments by analogy are deeply connected to inductive reasoning and the power of models. From Aristotle's recognition of the implication of successive warrant on, the need to stop at a finitely remote set of first plausibles without begging big questions has been on the table. Linked, is the matter of self-evident first truths such as we see with distinct identity; without distinct entities we cannot even think in symbols much less communicate or argue. Paul of Tarsus gives what is probably a C1 Rhetoric 101 summary, in what is in fact the most readily accessible classical text-compilation of our civilisation, by common title translated into current English, THE Book:
1 Cor 14:7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. [ESV]
Distinct identity, of course, carries with it as close corollaries non contradiction and excluded middle, as I noted in my u/d to the OP above. (I will shortly add to the OP, a summary figure on the challenge of regress of warrant.) This is actually an important point, we see here by example, a case of a self-evident first truth of logic. We cannot dispute it without using it, and we cannot prove it without using it. Our choice would be to reject rational communication or to acknowledge it. The former is patently infeasible and we all accept this principle implicitly, save when we find it inconvenient. And just to communicate the objection (usually to LNC, a corollary) as Paul noted, we are using it. So, we are forced to acknowledge POI, LNC and LEM as start points of rational communication and argument. You are doubtless aware of this paper, in which I argue that a core of Mathematics can be seen to grow from this root. (And yes, that's another instructive metaphor, trees and roots. Notice, like building foundations, trees are based on the good earth underneath, though of course we have the famous parable of building on rock vs sand and what happens when a bad storm comes to the implied flood plain. Thus architects and master-builders as well as home owners need to watch where and how they build, given plausible challenges.) Now, a little under 100 years ago, there was a contentious debate on foundationalism, with strong aftershocks to the '80's, with one result being the rise of Reformed Epistemology. Plantinga is of course yet again a big name there, including his argument that a particular person can be fully justified or warranted [the terms are significantly different] to hold as properly basic certain views based on personal experience and memory as reflected on, due to his senses and consciousness being in reasonable working order and in environments they are fitted for, delivering responsibly trustworthy results. He of course acknowledges a debt to Reidian common sense. I note, that our conscious awareness of ourselves and our world, as well as of our consciences are part of this pattern. Yes, as I augmented the OP above and in the standard clip to follow, we are also error prone but that does not fatally compromise our ability to access responsible warrant and common sense, reliable but revisable frameworks of knowledge. That's how science goes. Which brings up three key metaphors advanced during the big hot debate: Neurath's raft, Schlick's pyramid and Quine's spider web. Let me augment with Plato's ship of state, which given Luke in Ac 27, I want to further look at in terms of the ship itself and how its strengths and limitations in environments affect what a responsible crew should do. (Don't forget, they had to frap the ship to take twisting load given obviously sprung timbers and put out a sea anchor to claw away from the sandbars of Syrtis, once they had foolishly ventured out in the teeth of prudent warning; eventually by God's grace becoming a shipwreck off a beach at Malta, which means, haven.) I notice something about the metaphors. They all have some sort of underlying environmental base, relying on stable, intelligible laws, and they all have to be coherently constructed then soundly managed. The house or pyramid has a foundation meant to give strength and stability in the earth or on bedrock, which is not always present. The spider's web obviously has to be coherent, but part of that is, anchor lines running out to anchor points. A raft, yes, can be under reconstruction but must have a structural framework rooted in principles of structural integrity and strength, or it will disintegrate and leave those on the raft swimming with the big sharks. And while a pyramid is obviously a highly stable, foundation-based structure, it relies on a framework to give it structural integrity that is rooted in statics and dynamics as well as in the good spaceship earth. The ship, of course, has a keel and framework, with a web of timbers or sheeting that protects, provides flotation and allows cargo spaces, accommodations and superstructure as well as sails and these days engines, with a bridge, maps and instruments for navigation under sound management. In short, there are material, technological and intellectual foundations and coherent frameworks involved in all cases. Even, the tree, the oldest of foundation-rooted structures. The debate, then, should not be on whether worldview foundations, but in what form, with what basis and with what integrity and limitations. Including, how do we manage the relationship between the merchant-owner [cf. Plato's metaphor for the people, strong but impaired in sight, hearing and knowledge of navigation] and the potentially mutinous crew who want the helm and are prone to loot the stores, while sidelining and denigrating the actually sound navigator or prudent passenger who raises concerns about venturing out in potentially unsafe weather. In short, I think the ship of state -- or better yet, civilisation -- is perhaps the most instructive metaphor in our time. Predictably, studiously ignored and sidelined. We have already seen that at least some first principles exist and have warrant antecedent to proofs and even the exercise of having a civilisation level discussion that builds ca knowledge base. Similarly, hyperskepticism and its liked privileging of dismissive doubt refutes itself. Where does the skeptic get his coherent tune or sentences and arguments from? S/he has borrowed without acknowledgement from the civilisation's stores; in too many cases, the better to loot without needing to account to first principles and broader first duties. This includes the existence of language, funds of tradition, history [lessons paid for with blood and tears now part of our commons if we will but heed] and carefully built up bodies of credible knowledge. Knowledge, being responsibly warranted, credibly true (so reasonably reliable) beliefs with linked know-how, i.e. techniques and arts. The going concern ship of civilisation -- for all its troubles, legacy of painful events including outright crimes that in some cases have never been fully resolved, devil's bargain compromises that were struck to find a way to survive and have a hope of progress, scars, wounds, limitations -- did not poof into existence from nowhere and nothing. No, it was painfully built, rebuilt, strengthened, frapped and repaired in storms, navigated to where we now are; at great cost and across thousands of years. It is powerful, but inherently fragile, it has to navigate a potentially destructive and significantly unpredictable environment and we have to recognise that the best guide to future storms is the record of past storms and how they were managed. Let us have some basic respect and recognition. Good ship civilisation, we salute you. In that context, let us look briefly at the worldviews and warrant issue. You will recall, that over the years, I have posed the chain of warrant challenge: A requires B, B requires C and so on. Infinite regress is not going to be traversed (and long chains are error prone), simple circularity obviously fails, and mutually reinforcing webs, rafts and ships actually have foundational frameworks and are anchored to issues, contexts and principles of the environments in which they are sited and must operate. Including, in the face of storms . . . and our civilisation is currently facing a real doozy. We are left to finite scale structures, with foundational frameworks that must provide coherence, unified integrity and unified strength. Including, we probably need to do some serious frapping and putting out of sea anchors to pull us off line of drift, while sorting out a needless bridge fight and linked mutiny. Some of the mutineers are so blinded by rage, too, that they only wish to destroy: these have to be identified and curbed. Or, the ship is going to founder; at terrible cost to all. We already see that there are self-evident first truths, first principles, which are not trivial. However, it has long been patent that such will never amount to sufficiency to build or significantly repair the ship. However, plumb lines, yardsticks, squares and key tool kits are obviously useful and important. So, we need to reckon with the issue of which architecture is best for the ship, which in the meanwhile cannot be allowed to fall apart and must not be allowed to drift onward to the fatal sand banks of Syrtis. Our folly of venturing out from Fair Havens heedless of warning and by gambling all on a sweet south wind that was itself a sign of a coming storm, is coming back to haunt us. So, the point is, we are looking at worldview alternatives that must be [1] reliably factually adequate; [2] coherent logically, dynamically and yes morally; also [3] fairly simple without being either simplistic or an ad hoc patchwork. Where, simplicity in the face of a tangled problematique is rather relative. Just look at a good introduction to aerodynamics or chemistry or biology or finance etc. There are complexities, we need guide-star principles and explanatory frameworks, such are an intellectual challenge for the finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill willed and closed minded or agenda driven. The demand for simplistic one size fits all explanations fails. We need to carefully build up bodies of reasonably credible and reliable knowledge and best practice; understanding that we are liable to err. It is in that context, as you know from years of interaction, that I have championed comparative difficulties analysis as just outlined. Where, as a key feature, I have taken the model of science seriously: much of our knowledge is in a weak or soft form sense of that term. What is responsibly well warranted, credibly true [and so reliable so far] belief, is subject to correction, amendment and even radical paradigm shifts. No one whose core discipline is physics can responsibly hold otherwise. Such, manifestly, has been adequate to radically transform and improve our world since the 1540's. Notwithstanding, not everything is like that. What do I mean? Go back to Paul using a C1 Rhetoric 101 example to remind the Corinthians of a self-evident first principle that literally lies at the root of logic, it is even in a sense antecedent to its close corollaries, non contradiction and excluded middle. Note the chart in the OP. A is distinct from not-A, rooted in its characteristics. A is in a wider context or world of discussion or observation. Any particular x in the context is in A or not in A but not both or neither. No particular y can be in A AND in ~A, or in neither while being in the context. Those are not arbitrary rules imposed by dead white men, they are readily observable and inescapable. Just trying to think and talk about them uses them. Even, the hyperskeptical objector. So, sense is to acknowledge such, recognising that by themselves they don't frame a worldview. Hence onward constructs and comparative difficulties. Comparative as, as was noted over the years, every major worldview option bristles with difficulties. No exceptions, so our situation forces us to choose the difficulties we are willing to live with, while recognising that certain views are in fact non viable as they fail the test of undeniable first principles. For instance it is futile to assert that all truths and knowledge are relative; this is a self-defeating objective truth claim. Likewise, tolerance is a virtue but that does not extend to entertaining that one can stand by neutral between say a flawed America, France and Britain on one hand and a Hitler or a Stalin and a Mao on the other. That is, there have to be responsible start points for morality, law, ethics etc. We can even extend that to aesthetics, in the face of the follies of brutalism or London's spoiled skyline! In this context, we can observe our common consent by how we argue, quarrel and contend, or even simply reason, that we are bound by a built in law with moral roots tied to justice. That is why I am again putting on the table a key summary, duly noting how -- despite distractions and dismissals etc -- even objectors repeately show that they are forced to refer to these in order to have rhetorical . . . persuasive . . . traction. That's a big clue that the following first duties, as advertised, are inescapable and binding, coeval with our responsible rational freedom as human beings. Note, how I have augmented here and in the OP:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we seek to evade duties or may make errors does not overthrow the first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
Of course, we are free to disregard such or to try to carve out self-serving exceptions. But, the good ship civilisation can only take so much damage, which is cumulative and can be fatal -- witness the collapse of the W Roman Empire. Which, of course, many are disinclined to heed. A ship with sprung timbers, gapped seams and drifting to fatal sandbars in NOT a place any sane person wishes to be. Let us ponder our alternatives. KF kairosfocus
VL, kindly note here, my last extensive response to your remarks. KF kairosfocus
Let me be more specific. The recurring issue is your claim that conscience is necessary and inescapably part of the root of reality. The second issue is my pointing out that ultimately your assertion that stems from "our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God..." is basically a religious view that is grounded, behind the scenes so to speak, in your Christian faith. Which, or some other one, are you referring to? Second, your posts are so long and varied in content is is hard to know when you are addressing what point. You return to issues that are not active in the discussion and repeatedly re-quote sections which re-assert but do not further the argument, so sorting out what is relevant to what issue is difficult. So to then to say you answered a point above is not helpful. For instance, in what post above did you address the specific argument that conscience is necessarily and inescapable based in the root of reality? And I don't mean just asserted it, or quoted someone else who also thinks that, or makes it a consequence of an inherently good God (which just moves the issues down the road.) Be specific: what post and what paragraphs "answered this issue?" Viola Lee
KF writes, "VL, I corrected the strawman distortion and answered the issue." Which issue are you referring to? And can you point to the specific parts of what specific posts that you did that? Just post numbers would do for a start. Viola Lee
VL, I corrected the strawman distortion and answered the issue, but you seem to be stuck on the strawman. KF kairosfocus
Conscience
conscience is defined by its inward looking and subjective character, in the following sense: conscience is always knowledge of ourselves, or awareness of moral principles we have committed to, or assessment of ourselves, or motivation to act that comes from within us (as opposed to external impositions)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conscience/ One of many definitions. But it is something within the individual and can vary from individual to individual. Is there a uniformity of what individuals have committed to? Obviously not since it varies. Is their a prevalence to what individuals have committed to? Obviously yes, since certain behaviors/strategies lead to widely held objectives. What are these widely held objectives? Survival is the main one. But there are others. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs expresses this. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4136760 What is moral is what leads to survival and flourishing. And our conscience tells us what best does this. So conscience is at the root of human behavior to attain the goals that deem to be inherent in nearly all humans. It is necessary and inescapable otherwise we as a species would have disappeared a long time ago. A personal aside and this has religious implications: if one believes in salvation, it is difficult to understand how one could achieve this goal without wishing all could achieve this goal. If this is accurate, then a lot of “duties” become inescapable because of this wishing. But a lot of duties also become inescapable if all one wants is for humans to flourish on this earth. Just what are these? A lot of duties become inescapable if the only objective is survival. Just what are these? Where would Kf’s list of duties fall in each of these? Survival? Flourishing? Salvation? My assessment Definitely salvation. Most likely flourishing. Maybe not survival but they may improve survival. jerry
To argue against mental reality
I have never met anyone who ever did this. This is a nonsensical assertion. That we have minds and they are useful is one the most trivial conclusions I have ever seen. jerry
KF writes, "Note, objectors — consistently show that their objections cannot evade using appeals to our first duties of responsible reason." NO, FOR MANY POSTS WE HAVE FOCUSSSED ON YOUR CLAIM THAT CONSCIENCE IS EXISTENTIALLY, AT THE ROOT OF REALITY, IS NECESSARY AND INESCAPABLE. WHY CAN'T YOU GET CLEAR ON THAT???!!!! Also, you write, "Therefore, those who so eagerly branded me a Christian who actually — shudder, the horror, the shame, the demonstration of ineptitude ." That is an unfair characterization of me. I have emphasized that we all have faith beliefs, and I haven't denigrated that at all. I am just saying that your philosophically position is based on faith beliefs, and not necessary and inescapable logic. Viola Lee
Succinctly: No oughts can exist in the unavoidable. Thus, the unavoidable cannot be the ground for any ought. William J Murray
KF @ 952, No matter how many times you assert that my behavior relates to a duty, you have not established anything - logically - as a duty in the first place. At one point I gave you that arguendo, but that is no longer the case. I've explained - logically - that the concept of a duty cannot be applied to existential unavoidables. @953: That doesn't even address my rebuttal; you're just repeating what you said before my rebuttal. You'll have to do better than an out-of-context response to some line that "caught your eye" and triggered a rote repetition of what you said before the rebuttal, as if that addresses the rebuttal to the very thing you said before and just repeated. William J Murray
F/N: I note another thing that caught my eye: >>You have to have a better argument than “cf graveyard” to make the case we are contingent beings.>> Contingent beings are causally dependent on other entities, and show contingency through having a beginning or coming to an end. Death and graveyards are of course ends, marking the close or sunset of a life here on earth, whatever fate our souls may have. Therefore graveyards are quite adequate demonstrations of our contingency as beings. The fact of disabilities etc is another sign. KF kairosfocus
WJM, still busy but this particularly caught my eye: >>Absolutely not. Objective truth statements are not warranted because of definitional fiat, which your entire argument relies on>> There is no truth-warrant by definitional fiat above. I note that here again you appeal to duty to right reason and prudence [aspect, warrant], in your argument, yet again illustrating the point I have put on the table since the OP: observable inescapability. KF kairosfocus
Now, on to my being a "contingent" being. What is the essential nature of my "being?" Is it my biological body that begins at birth and ends at death? Nope. I am not my physical body; I'm consciousness operating a physical body. In order for me to a "contingent" being, something must have generated my consciousness. What does it mean to create a house? The house is formed from other materials that have in them the potential for the house. If that potential did not exist in the materials, the house could not be built. What then, "generated" my consciousness? Can consciousness be said to constructed from the potential that resided in the materials used to fashion consciousness? I don't see how that argument can be made; consciousness is ineffable and it seems to be fundamental and primary. You have to have a better argument than "cf graveyard" to make the case we are contingent beings. William J Murray
MR (mental reality) is an inescapable self-evident truth. 1. Where does the observation of any fact occur? In mind. 2. Where do theories exist? In mind. 3. Where does evaluation and interpretation of facts into theories occur? In mind. 4. Where do self-evident truths exist? In mind. 5. Where does logic (and "right reason") exist? In mind. 6. Where does every experience of any sort occur? In mind. 7. Where do prudence, warrant, justice, fairness, conscience exist? In mind. 8. Where does preference exist? In mind. 9. Where do math and geometry exist? In mind. 10. Where does consciousness itself exist? In mind. 11. Where does information exist? In mind. 12. Where and how does the processing of information occur? In mind, by mind. To argue against mental reality is the same as arguing that A does not equal A, or that 2+2=5. Every argument begins and ends in mind. You cannot avoid referring to mental reality in anything you think, say or do. Everything you think, say or do requires mental reality. You cannot escape mental reality any more than you can escape A=A or 2+2=4. In fact, A=A and 2+2=4 require mental reality to be true because those things cannot even exist unless mental reality is true. Until your argument acknowledges that you cannot even refer to anything other than mental reality, your logic fails because you have sawed yourself off of the branch that encompasses everything you can see, say, do, think or experience. IF you shut your mind off, you have no existence and nothing exists for you. There no reality - for you - anymore, because all of that - self and other - for you, exists completely in your mind. William J Murray
KF said:
WJM, the appeal to voice of conscience is always there when one claims to correct a fallacy.
Apparently, KF also wears conscience-colored sunglasses. When and where I point out fallacies of thought is entirely due to personal enjoyment. Note how I have, in the past, made arguments in support of objective morality, even though I didn't believe in it (and was careful not to say what I personally believed.) Was I making those arguments out of conscience? No, I made them because I enjoyed doing so. Similarly, in another long thread about politics, I kept pointing out that some of those involved were not living up to their duty of due diligence. Did I believe in duties at the time? No. I used that phrase because nobody was challenging it and it was an easy way to prevail in those arguments. Was I making that case out of conscience? No. I realize it is probably unfathomable to you, KF, but I do not operate from conscience in any ordinary sense of that word; enjoying my existence is my sole motivation and guide behind everything I think and do. I evaluate, as best I can, the enjoyment potentials available to me and that defines the entirely of my oughts and ought-nots. My "conscience," if it can be said to be such, is entirely about what enjoyments I ought or ought not select in terms of potential enjoyment outcomes and kinds of enjoyments available by either doing or not doing a thing. For example, "Smoking too much" eventually results in less physical enjoyment of it, but sometimes I do it anyway because I enjoy the psychology of smoking more than the physically unenjoyable aspects of it. When the psychology of it becomes unenjoyable, that's when I stop smoking - for a while, until it is both physically and psychologically enjoyable again. What you see as "conscience" and "duty" is your interpretation of the behavior of others through the lens of your beliefs. You don't get to assign me those things to me definitionally, and insist I am necessarily operating from them. And yes, my entire comment here inescapably refers to unavoidable existential necessities, but unavoidable existential necessities not only do not a duty make, they obviate the capacity to consider those things "duties" at all, as I have explained in prior comments. William J Murray
WJM, somewhere above, you inferred that I question-beggingly inserted a fallacy in pointing out that a claim of fallacy implies a call on duty to voice of sound conscience. I note from IEP: https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/ >>A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. The list of fallacies below contains 230 names of the most common fallacies, and it provides brief explanations and examples of each of them. Fallacious arguments should not be persuasive, but they too often are. Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people. The vast majority of the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments, although some involve only explanations, or definitions, or other products of reasoning. Sometimes the term “fallacy” is used even more broadly to indicate any false belief or cause of a false belief. The list below includes some fallacies of these sorts, but most are fallacies that involve kinds of errors made while arguing informally in natural language. A charge of fallacious reasoning always needs to be justified. The burden of proof is on your shoulders when you claim that someone’s reasoning is fallacious. Even if you do not explicitly give your reasons, it is your responsibility to be able to give them if challenged. An informal fallacy is fallacious because of both its form and its content. The formal fallacies are fallacious only because of their logical form. For example, the Slippery Slope Fallacy has the following form: Step 1 often leads to step 2. Step 2 often leads to step 3. Step 3 often leads to … until we reach an obviously unacceptable step, so step 1 is not acceptable. That form occurs in both good arguments and fallacious arguments. The quality of an argument of this form depends crucially on the probabilities of going from one step to another. The probabilities involve the argument’s content, not merely its form.>> In short, a charge, fallacy in general or by name implies error and/or deceit or manipulation. We can take it for granted that duty to truth and to right reasoning thus prudence (here esp warrant) will make themselves felt through that inner compass-sense or voice we term conscience. KF kairosfocus
KF @945:
Euthyphro dilemma- is the good and just good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just".
The EP is based on essential assumptions that have not been established as valid, such as that “good” and “just” exist as more than individual preferences.
Hume's guillotine is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements.
This is the classic is-ought gap.
Agrippa trilemma - how to best justify beliefs - The three epistemological responses to Agrippa’s trilemma are Infinitism (infinite chain of justification,) Coherentism (a circular argument supported by the fact that it works in modeling the world,) and Foundationalism, which is basically the agreement that self-evident truths exist, and necessary trust that must extend from them are unarguably true.
Foundationalism only takes you so far because it goes from self-evident truths, to necessary truths, to likely truths (or well-warranted truths, as KF might say.) It seems to me that once you get to “likely” truths, you have to start adding in some Coherentism to make the case, which is apparently also how KF makes his case. KF said:
Infinite traverse of causally connected temporally successive stages is infeasible, so the past is finite, even beyond our observed world typically estimated to come from a singularity short of 14 BYA, the precise duration keeps bouncing so let’s go with the general expansion limit. That points onward to necessary being as root or source of worlds with contingent creatures including us.
This is a false dichotomy. Our only two logical options are not either an infinite past or a point of creation moving forward. There is at least one other perspective, a theory in the book “The End of Time” by science writer Julian Barbour. As far as I can tell, it’s the only theory that does not, in some way, imply infinite regress of either time or space-time sets. One might call it a scientific "Theory of the Eternal Now."
Graveyards of course definitively demonstrate that we are highly contingent.
Nope. This belief is rooted in the unsupportable inference that a world external of mind exists. That we exist entirely in and of mind is a self-evident truth. Ignoring that truth leads to all sorts of down-the-line logical and interpretive errors.
That said, it remains true that we can readily observe the pattern of first duties, …
No, we cannot, because you are applying the term “duty” assumptively. Existential necessity does not - in fact, can not imply a “duty.” Universal behavior does not imply a “duty.” Duties are, definitionally, behaviors either taken on or assigned to us whether we agree to it or not by, ultimately, other sentient beings (such as, the laws are written and enforced by sentient beings.) It cannot be rationally said that we have a duty to a thing simply because the thing is unavoidable; in fact, that would negate the “duty” aspect, because an essential aspect of “duty” is the ability to choose to not do your duty (see your 7-9.) Since we cannot avoid these fundamental aspects of our existence, it is necessarily in conflict with the nature a “duty” to say this demonstrates a “first duty" to those things because we do not even have the capacity to refuse to do our duty. Saying that the capacity to neglect our duties comes farther down the line in the application of right reason beyond the existentially necessary is fruit of a poisoned tree. You cannot say the existentially unavoidable establishes duties because one cannot choose to avoid doing those things; thus, we cannot have duties to “right reason,” etc., because those things are rooted in something that contradicts the possible “duty” value of them. This is made clear by Hume’s Guillotine; you cannot get an ought (duty) from an is. A duty (or ought) can only exist where choice is possible; the choice potential describes a non-”is” state - or: you haven’t made the choice yet. “Oughts” require there be an ought-not option available at least in thought. One cannot even think in contradiction to existential unavoidables.
..and may easily note how they are so inescapable that even objectors are forced to appeal to them to give their arguments rhetorical traction.
This assumes your definitional assertion that there are duties attached to those things in the first place. Nobody is challenging that are not referring to existential unavoidables regardless of what we say or how we say it; what we are saying is that we don’t agree that those things represent “duties.” In fact, I’ve just argued how those things cannot represent “duties” because for a thing to be a duty requires that one be able to avoid their duty; otherwise, there can be no “ought” about it.
Nothing in the above shows good cause to reject such a conclusion, indeed the objections keep showing cases of implicit appeal to the first duties.
No, the objections always refer to the existentially unavoidable; nobody is arguing against that. When you claim that the objections themselves unavoidably refer to first duties, you’re just seeing what we say through duty-colored sunglasses. You have not made the case that the existence of existential unavoidables means that they necessarily imply a duty. You just keep asserting it over and over without making that case. You don’t get to describe what we are doing as “referring to first duties” by definitional fiat.
That is ARGUMENT I.
And it has failed because you rely on definitional fiat when it comes to “duties.” It is logically absurd to say that an existential unavoidable implies a “duty” because that is the opposite of what the idea of “duties” must refer to. As to your numbered points: 1 True 2. True 3. Clearly false 4. “Duty” has not been established and is unnecessary here. 5. “Duty” has not been established in the first place except by definitional fiat. 6. See 5. 7. True 8. True 9. True 10. Yes, but a warranted truth may not be a truth. 11. True 12. Yes 13. Absolutely not. Objective truth statements are not warranted because of definitional fiat, which your entire argument relies on; and because the concept of “duty” cannot (as I have shown above) be attached to inescapable, existential qualities, we can see that your argument fails. William J Murray
Sandy, thanks for your comment, given the contentious situation that is most helpful. Actually, though, it is as one who is a scientifically trained policy analyst that I am noting on readily observable general patterns. Indeed, so general that objectors find themselves unable to seek rhetorical traction for their points without implicitly appealing to said first duties. Including, when they have tried to impugn me as begging questions based on dubious religious commitments . . . and WJM, the appeal to voice of conscience is always there when one claims to correct a fallacy. Of course, we both have reasons for our religious commitments, and it so happens that I have publicly argued per the 500 witnesses to the resurrection, none of whom could be induced to recant, not even in the face of dungeon, fire, sword or much worse. Such comes directly from Ac 17 and 1 Cor 15 and I could cite Babbage on how Hume's objections on testimony of witnesses to miracles evaporates when witnesses are multiplied as the probability of mutual error fades to negligible proportions. But the actually relevant context is that I am trained in Physics, related technology, Math and Strategic Management, with linked experience as a policy analyst. In that context, I habitually will be alert to patterns of observation, i.e. to lawlike regularities. It so turns out that every objector to the first duties of reason is also at the same time relying on the first duties in his or her arguments. That is a striking feature, and one that shatters such objections. More generally, the first duties are deeply stamped in how we argue, even those who are being manipulative. So, by common consent, we imply that these are laws of reason. Though we often try to carve out self serving exceptions when we quarrel. Which actually proves the point. In short, to sustain their own views, objectors object. But in objection they provide further examples of just how inescapable the first duties are. It would be funny if it were not in the end sad. This is where our civilisation has come to. KF kairosfocus
Jerry (& attn VL, JVL, WJM et al): I specifically am not -- repeat, not -- invoking the God of Christian faith in the discussion here. Especially in ARGUMENT I, which is antecedent to and independent of ARGUMENT II. (And in the latter case, an inference to best, worldviews explanation challenge, ethical theism is a philosophical view for comparative difficulties analysis across live options; not, a doctrinal stance of any particular religious tradition or writings.) Yes, it is generally compatible with the Judaeo-Christian view that for instance God considered as root of reality . . . a descriptive, not theological term tied to multiverse issues and questions on infinite causal-temporal chains . . . would be the inherently good and utterly wise creator of power sufficient to actualise and sustain worlds, a necessary and maximally great being. However, these are not theological concepts and arise in the course of philosophy, particularly the Euthyphro dilemma, the Hume Guillotine, the debate on an infinite or circular causal-temporal past, so the Agrippa trilemma, ontology [logic of being] etc. Infinite traverse of causally connected temporally successive stages is infeasible, so the past is finite, even beyond our observed world typically estimated to come from a singularity short of 14 BYA, the precise duration keeps bouncing so let's go with the general expansion limit as just stated. That points onward to necessary being as root or source of worlds with contingent creatures including us. Where, genus-difference allows us to identify the classes . . . I here revert to OO computer science terminology for familiarity . . . that particular instantiated objects express. Our humanity is such an abstract class and has in it a blueprint of core characteristics or attributes, which are partly inherited in the class sense, are partly fresh to this class, and face the family resemblance on the whole issue familiar from attempts to define biological life. A mule is alive and a recognisable equine but generally is not capable of reproduction due to genetic incompatibilities. Just so, humans with defects of conscience, senses, reasoning ability etc are still recognisably human but reflect our radical contingency. Graveyards of course definitively demonstrate that we are highly contingent. So, it becomes seriously problematic to try to impose necessary existential characteristics as part of stipulating our class of being, our blueprint. A double amputee is not a 3/4 human but fully human, just, one with a serious medical challenge. One in a coma or alleged vegetative state is not subhuman and so having life at forfeit at pleasure of the state etc. A Jew or a Black person is not subhuman. A person of low IQ is not subhuman, nor is one of high IQ superhuman or even automatically sound, moral and wise. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were highly intelligent, utterly wicked, destructively unsound. These, should be commonplaces of the educated but it is a sign of how far our civilisation has fallen that they are not. That said, it remains true that we can readily observe the noted pattern of first duties, and may easily note how they are so inescapable that even objectors are forced to appeal to them to give their arguments rhetorical traction. We are looking at a general, lawlike pattern and on duty to truth, right reason and prudence (which includes epistemic warrant, aka "warrant") we should acknowledge it. Acknowledge as true, there is such a pattern, by general consent and demonstration; one that is manifestly inescapable. Though of course we are oh so clever at trying to carve out self-serving exceptions, as our quarrelling amply demonstrates. Inescapable, inescapably true, so at root of reason . . . first duties of reason, i.e. among first principles of responsible reason. Nothing in the above exchange over nearly 1000 comments shows good cause to reject such a conclusion, indeed the objections keep showing cases of implicit appeal to the first duties. Wisdom is to acknowledge them and let the resulting worldview chips lie where they fly. In that context, I have pointed, in adequate detail, to the logic of inescapability in how we reason, exemplified by Epictetus' exchange on logic; I believe, a Stoic. Note, objectors -- as once again demonstrated (and studiously sidelined yet again) yesterday -- consistently show that their objections cannot evade using appeals to our first duties of responsible reason. Just as advertised from the outset. That is ARGUMENT I. It stands on its own two feet as a case of an inescapable, lawlike pattern in a psycho-social phenomenon, human argument, quarrelling and reasoning, something those of scientific bent are trained and inclined to spot, take serious note of and attach descriptive terms to . . . and I note, that obvious and highly relevant personal connexion was not made. (Therefore, those who so eagerly branded me a Christian who actually -- shudder, the horror, the shame, the demonstration of ineptitude . . . NOT -- has publicly argued that this faith is well warranted, are patently indulging the fallacy of evading merits of the actual argument at stake to set up and knock over a strawman caricature. Did you notice the issues in that argument, questions of history, witness and balance of alternatives on the merits? Do you notice that such is indeed a matter of inference to best explanation but in a context of history? Cf. say the debates on how the Reichstag fire came to be set.) Of course, we also show a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that's why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. Relevant to this case, strawman. So, yes, I have made a natural law argument rooted in Cicero's triggering thoughts in opening remarks in De Legibus. Let me again put on record my openly confessed roots of thought on this matter, horror of horrors I Googled and pondered -- yes, shocking confession of a capital crime of wrongthink -- a pagan Stoic and found he had something worth listening to, similar to say US Founders and others down the ages:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [--> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [--> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
[--> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]
This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
Law as highest reason, tied to giving each their due? Thus, we see justice as due balance of rights, freedoms and duties? Moral prudence and the voice of -- presumably sound and perhaps, shocked -- conscience is a law? The horror, the horror, folly and nonsense, bestir the cauldron: we all "know" that law is whatever those who control the legal presses rule or decree or vote -- NOT. That is the point, as a descendant of slaves (also of the men who cohabited with them through concubinage . . . I was just the other day looking at land, slave and animal ownership registers c 1820 - 30 for my ancestral parish and there some of my ancestors are as owners on eve of Emancipation . . . [a key one buried in a certain ancestral plot being seemingly 70 years of age c 1830, if I interpret right]) and being literally named after a family of a man judicially murdered through miscarriage of martial law and courts martial, I have a self-confessed built in bias: unless law is expressly accountable to justice and soundness, it becomes camouflage for destructive power agendas, aka voyages/marches of folly and oppression. I think Plato's Socrates would agree with me, given the parable of the ship of state. So would Luke, judging from Ac 27. Jesus per Matt 19 and Paul per Rom 2 and 13. Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Augustine and Aquinas. Justinian, Tribonian and the other Jurisconsults behind Corpus Juris Civilis and its embedded textbook on Law, the Institutes. Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics. Alfred the Great [and my wife and I both have uncles with that name, also our fathers have name Robert or a variant form and Edith is there as Mother or Grandmother, William is also there, both sides, Father for one, Grandfather for the other. There is a Henry too . . . ] in his Book of Dooms. Archbishop of Canterbury Samuel Langton in Magna Carta 39 and 40. Aquinas. Many thinkers and jurists of the earlier modern era. Locke and the US Founders/Framers, with Rutherford, the Dutch declarants of 1581 and Philippe Duplessis-Mornay et al. Blackstone, in what was a body of lectures at Oxford. Even Napoleon in his reframing of law in the Continental tradition. BTW, I just pointed to the framers of law for the world, outside the explicitly theocratic Islamic bloc, Sharia and Shia traditions. Legal positivism is a modernist novelty and is patently open to nihilism. Yes, as a policy analyst, I freely confess my line of influence and my onward agenda. Horror of horrors, I actually imagine that we need to return to the historic vision that law is highest reason directed towards the civil peace of justice, due balance of rights freedoms and responsibilities coeval with our common humanity. Guilty as charged, here are my hands for the thongs, no need for the hood, measure me for the length and make sure the Jack Ketch knot is tight and under the left ear to break not strangle on the long drop. It seems I must resort to such an extreme of satire to make the point. Please, let us go back to the beginning:
1: is or is it not true that we argue, quarrel, reason (often by internal dialogue)? T 2: Is it not true that in arguments we seek not only warrant but rhetorical traction? T 3: Is it not true that even those who fall into error intend to be warranted and accurate? T 4: Is it not true that manipulators deliberately appeal to our sense of duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice [esp outrage at real or imagined injustices etc] ? T 5: Is it not the case that, demonstrably, we can itemise a list of seven, yardstick first duties? T -- truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, fairness, justice, etc. 6: Is it not true that even objectors cannot but appeal to such? T as seen again and again. 7: Is it not so that first principles of reason are embedded in our acts of reason, including attempts to prove such? T, see Epictetus on logic. 8: Is it not so, that -- on pain of self-discrediting grand delusion -- we should take such evident first principles as inescapable, inescapably true, self-evident and antecedents to reasoned argument? T, on pain of reducing human rationality to utter discredit. 9: Is it not so, that a truth is an accurate description of an entity, a phenomenon, a state of affairs etc? T, again an inescapable . . alternative definitions invariably embed this aspect or fail of what we normally mean by truth. 10: Is it not the case that a truth can often be warranted per facts, logic and start-points of reasoning? T 11: Is it not so that a truth is objective to the degree that it is so warranted as surpassing the idiosyncracies of any particular finite, fallible thinker or body of such? T 12: Is it not the case that in the above, we are addressing truth-claims regarding duty, ought, so morality? T 13: Is it not the case that we here have objective warrant on certain moral first duties of reason, which therefore have a warrant to be recognised as objective moral truths regarding duties of reason? Arguably, T. Those who object in objecting are forced to appeal to what they object to.
Here I stand, for cause. And 13 coils are traditional though 7 - 9 are enough. KF kairosfocus
ViolaLee What I object to is his arguing that his position is a “necessary and inescapable” logical conclusion, and that those who have a different perspective are wrong
I know you think you are a compassionate person that practice inclusion but this attitude is doing more damage than good when you say all roads go to Rome. Some roads go to a ravine and you encourage people to jump...because eventually from abyss you will arrive to Rome. Not. But you testified and have to accept responsibility for giving suicidal advices from...compassion ,not to offend. Sandy
this certainly seems like a specific religious point of view
Kf does indeed invoke what seems to be the Judeo/Christian God as the source for these laws. I share this belief. However, the specific source for this internal nature of humans and animals are not necessary for the understanding that such a nature exists snd how it operates and how this may be expressed in external civil laws for humans. We speak of “laws” in three different ways - the laws of physics, the laws of nature which are built into life forms, and positive laws which are imposed by civic legal authorities for the governance of humans. They are related but very different. There is a connection between all three for humans. The laws of physics are hard laws affecting the interaction of particles. No one knows why they exist and in such an effective way but they do and they make for an orderly existence. The laws of nature are also part of our external world and have a mysterious origin too. They are not as demonstrably strong as the laws of physics but they too make for an orderly existence. Human nature or what we are calling the natural law are tendencies built into humans. There are also strong tendencies built into all life, many explained by the interaction of proteins. (A relationship between the laws of physics and the natural laws are that protein interactions are based on electro/magnetic interactions of positive and negative charged molecules) Humans have the option to override these built in tendencies and often when they do, suboptimal consequences appear. So societies have instituted positive laws to ensure the harmony in society. They don’t always get it right. For example, all the laws from antiquity that oppressed the average person. For thousands of years they missed one of the biggest aspects of human nature, the desire for freedom. It is almost like they do/did recognize this aspect of human nature and think/thought they must restrict it. They failed to see the potential for it. So Kf seeing a current trend to reinstitute these oppressive laws has raised an alarm. He used his religious understanding to help explain what is being violated. I agree with his understanding but don’t believe it’s necessary to come to these same conclusions about what is happening using a religious framework. jerry
We are not debating that we have deeply rooted instincts and some core aspects of human nature, including the will to survive. We are debating, among other things what is meant by a "law". You often talk about the need for clear definitions: there is a difference between generalizations based on empirical observations, on the one hand, and laws which enforce themselves, so to speak, on human beings. The natural law of the philosophers is of the second kind: laws which are external to any specific individuals. And this certainly seems like a specific religious point of view, including the second use of the idea of law from my paragraph above.
KF writes, The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
Viola Lee
The code for the thumbs up is &#12 8077; 👍 I put a space after 2 and before 8 so it wouldn’t code. So take it out. jerry
KF is a Christian, and is active on the internet advocating for Christianity What I object to is his arguing that his position is a “necessary and inescapable” logical conclusion, and that those who have a different perspective are wrong.
I don’t believe Kf is arguing from a specific religious point of view. The history of natural law is rooted in the belief that humans have a nature that leads to certain choices being better for its existence and its flourishing. Some of the choices are extremely obvious and some appear after careful reflection. Minds such as the Stoics, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Rousseau and many others have written on it. Some of these choices are instinctive and are tendencies that come up time snd time again. So they are said to be rooted in human nature. Humans have the ability to override these choices whereas no other animal species does so naturally. Usually when some of these choices are avoided the good of the individual and society are harmed. The Greeks and Romans were the first to write about this and most thought humans were created this way, with these tendencies. They ascribed it to some force and some called this impersonal force a god. In order to survive and flourish, certain actions were required to facilitate this flourishing. They had no organized concept of salvation though some thought of an afterlife. They were interested in the here and now of their own people. This is so obvious that it is amazing it is still being debated 900+ comments later. I could see trying to refine it. But debating it is insanity. jerry
Sandy, I know you have no responsibility to pay attention to or remember what I say, but I have been very clear that I believe all of us make choices about various kinds of metaphysical beliefs and moral principles that can't be shown to be objectively true, but which we adopt on faith as understandings for ourselves. KF is a Christian, and is active on the internet advocating for Christianity. That is fine, just as it fine for people to advocate for other religions, or no religion at all. What I object to is his arguing that his position is a "necessary and inescapable" logical conclusion, and that those who have a different perspective are wrong. Viola Lee
ViolaLee KF’s arguments flow from his faith in his religious beliefs
Do you know a human being that doesn't have religious beliefs ? Atheists also have religious beliefs. Regarding to beginnings all opinions are religious beliefs. ..... All this dialogue can be resumed like: Kairosfocus fill up square miles of explanations. Viola Lee answer:"Do we have a thumbs-up emoji?" Sandy
Cool. What's the code for that, or is there a link to a reference? Thanks. Viola Lee
Do we have a thumbs-up emoji?
👍 jerry
WJM, the inescapability about gravitation is about mechanical necessity. The appeal to first duties of reason -- which your objections ALSO appeal to -- is an appeal to principles of oughtness, which can always be flouted by a free creature, but not without harmful consequences. That is, part of oughtness has to do with things such that while we may flout them, such flouting is in the end self-defeating. The case of what if lying were to become the dominant mode of communication is illustrative. And, again our proneness to death shows something else about our nature, our sheer contingency. KF kairosfocus
KF said:
We are contingent beings, cf a graveyard.
How does "conferre a graveyard" even begin to make a case for my existential "contingency?" Are you saying that because I'm born and die, my existence is contingent on being born and staying physically alive? Is physical life the full extent of my existence? Is that an argument you really want to make? Are you a materialist implying that my "existence" is entirely material/physical? I don't think that's the argument you wish to make. Can my existential nature be stated as anything other, fundamentally, than consciousness experiencing information? Are you going to try to make the argument that I, as that experiencing consciousness, "was created?" So many unfounded, ultimately nonsensical, unexamined assertions. Fortunately, I have the time and enjoy finding them. It's rather like a "Where's Waldo?" book. William J Murray
Do we have a thumbs-up emoji? And I like the interjection of comments inside KF's quote, as that is his style. And this is the key point: "these last five [sound conscience, etc.] have clearly not been established as having any existential, inescapable quality about them that, even if we allow KF to apply the concept of “duty” to an inescapable aspect of our existence, brings them into that category." And here is really where we're at: KF writes,
The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
KF's arguments flow from his faith in his religious beliefs. Viola Lee
I just want to point out again that the entirety of KF's argument begins with applying the concept of "duty" to a category of things it simply does not apply to. From there on, KF (and Cicero, et al, ) cherry pick the human behaviors that support the case to justify their pre-existing worldview perspective. Honestly, it's just not a good argument. At all. IOW, When you put on the "duty" sunglasses, you see "duties" everywhere. William J Murray
KF's argument, responded to:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties [an inescapable fact does not a duty make, example: just because I cannot disobey the law of gravity does not mean I have an duty to observe it. This is KF's original unfounded assumption and idiosyncratic labeling because it takes the word "duty" out of all normal context and applies it to a different category of things] to truth, to right reason, [the inescapability of making fundamental truth statements and using fundamental logic does not extend beyond the fundamentals, and certainly there is no implied "duty" to do so,] to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc. [ these last five have clearly not been established as having any existential, inescapable quality about them that, even if we allow KF to apply the concept of "duty" to an inescapable aspect of our existence, brings them into that category.]
There seems to be something about that snippet that makes KF think all this has been covered. I don't know what it could be other than that from KF's particluar worldview perspective those things seem to him to be crystal clear in that passage. It seems to me that this is because of some hidden worldview premises operating in the background that, when exposed like "conscience," don't stand up to scrutiny. Anyone want to try to prove we are "contingent beings?" Probably not. William J Murray
VL, a concrete demonstration on the inescapability you are trying to dismiss as my observation, rather than the point that this is a deeply stamped widely observed consistent pattern in argument, appeal to first duties of reason:
>>you point to observations>> 1: The observations are readily and generally confirmable, so I am summarising a commonplace fact on how we argue, quarrel and reason. That is, the observation is objective not idiosyncratic and dubious. 2: On point, you appeal to facts and imply appeal to duty to reason correctly and report accurately. 3: In opening words you are unable to argue without appealing to the first duties you would dismiss. The objection demonstrates the point it tries to dismiss . . . as advertised cf OP etc. >>about humans >> 4: The relevant parties arguing. >>and conclude that what you observe>> 5: By this time, what you SHOULD have observed about your own objection, as was pointed out from the outset. Again, here is the core argument, for reference . . . :
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
>> is existentially, at the root of reality,>> 6: You conflate two different argument streams, in an attempt to suggest failure to observe and/or reason correctly on my part. Notice, you are again appealing to the duties you would dismiss. 7: ARGUMENT I: [We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc.] 8: That is, an observable pattern is rhetorically undeniable without appealing to what one would deny. 9: This can be rightly termed a built in law that governs our rationality and is integral to -- coeval with -- our humanity. Surely, being rational and responsible as aspects of being significantly free are core to our being human, are core characteristics, never mind the deficient, handicapped or immature. 10: ARGUMENT II, a linked worldviews case that infers to a best explanation: [The first duties [--> as shown already], also [--> SECOND argument], are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and [--> joins equals] manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.] 11: This is elsewhere noted as a worldviews inference per best explanation on comparative difficulties. Notice, ARGUMENT I not only preceded ARGUMENT II, it is antecedent to it, grounding a fact of observation reflecting the general consent to the built in law expressed as first duties. 12: Argument 2 then advances a world-root level explanation. >> necessary and [--> strawman] inescapable.>> 13: What is inescapable is an observed pattern. 14: As we are contingent creatures, our nature is not necessary and individuals can and do have defects without losing their humanity membership card. But such are not normal. 15: Your very objection keeps on appealing to said duties, as we see in . . . >>You do not see the gulf between>> 16: Implying a claimed non sequitur fallacy on my part, i.e. you appeal to duty to right reason, but only to a strawman caricature of my argument. 17: Note especially ARGUMENT I above on just what is observed and inferred why. >>what you observe and your conclusions.>> 18: That even your objection -- as was just predicted -- cannot escape making the appeals to the duties as noted? If you had made an argument that did not do so, you may have had a point. 19: Perhaps, you mean, Argument II, which is a comparative difficulties, worldview case. If you object, kindly provide a persuasive argument that does not appeal to the first duties, and in that argument present a valid account of human morality. Prediction, you cannot. >> Time for me to let it go at that.>> 20: We can see the consistent balance on merits and so the implied policy of your clinging to an absurdity by exemplifying the inescapability of such appeals to first duties in trying to object to them, fails.
I note for record. KF kairosfocus
I observe that we have many, many different stories about how we and the universe came about and how we are to behave, and that we speculate in many different ways about things we can not directly observe. Therefore, I conclude we were designed that way?
Absolutely true. It doesn’t mean we stop there but need other things to help explain what happened. We will never be conclusively right. It is one of the inescapable conclusions of our world.
I also observe that almost universally people in one group at some point eventually go to war with other people, try to kill them, and otherwise cause them great suffering. Therefore, I conclude we were designed that way?
Absolutely true. There was an experiment we read about in business school. A group of homogenous people were divided into two groups and kept separate from each other but visible a short distance from each other. They were each assigned different activities and could be observed by each other but without the ability to know what each was doing. Each group was given an attitude evaluation of the other group. As time progressed the attitudes toward the other group got more and more negative. Then one member of each group was exchanged so each knew what the other had been doing. The attitudes all turned positive toward the other group. So this is part of the nature of humans. And the lesson is that we have duties to try and understand others nearby or we may kill each other. So communication is a survival duty. Just before reading about this experiment the professor asked for volunteers to form a group that would experiment using some team building skills to see if it led to an effective group. We were excused from class for two weeks but met 3-4 times each week to pursue the team building. Our classmates did not see us in class for this time but did see us in other classes. Result is that some of the team members became great friends. My wife was in that group and is essentially how we got to know each other. When we went back to regular classes some in the class literally despised us. It was all part of the lesson being taught. Team building was just the excuse to separate us. jerry
re 926: KF, you point to observations about humans and conclude that what you observe is existentially, at the root of reality, necessary and inescapable. You do not see the gulf between what you observe and your conclusions. Time for me to let it go at that. Viola Lee
WJM, our timeline may not be the root frame, even in broader time. KF kairosfocus
VL (attn CC): Your obsession with dismissively pointing to higher powers and to faith is duly noted. This is evidently a gateway to error. So, I comment. The pattern of duties implicit in the way arguments persuade is a directly intelligible, observable pattern, even in your objections just above. You are appealing to what you would dismiss. You did so by putting cart before horse, as though the associated worldviews inference on best explanation were a deductive demonstration from imposed allegedly generally accepted axioms that fail to be so accepted as they trace to faiths you seem to hold dubious. It is just the opposite, as was repeatedly pointed out. An explanation reverses the sense of argument with an implication structure p => q, and asks per factual adequacy, coherence [in several forms], explanatory power and balance [neither ad hoc nor simplistic] what candidate p of p1, p2 . . . pn best explains q which we observe? This should be familiar from science, history and common sense. Where, as for faith, it is trivial that for every a we demand proof of there is a b as basis, thence c for b, etc. Infinite regress cannot be traversed in steps of proof, so we have a finite limit, f. This limit cannot be based on a question-begging circle, so we are forced to compare alternatives f1, f2 . . . fn on inference to best explanation, in the end. That is, everyone has first plausibles that are not wholly self-evident once we deal with worldviews, so we are back at comparative difficulties. But the focal matter for this thread is about the self-evident subset, on the duties of reason. If you object, feel free to provide arguments that do not implicitly expect us to respond i/l/o binding first duties of reason as listed _____ prediction, you cannot and will not. This shows the fundamental want of reckoning with key facts in the objections above. For example if you object I don't have facts straight, that is an appeal to duty to truth, to right reason that warrants certain things to be known beyond responsible doubt and so as established truths. Similarly, if you imply begging questions because of imposed dubious ethical theism, that is an appeal to duty to right reason and to prudence, likely with hints of unfairness etc. If you suggest that theists are imposing, that is appeal to fairness and justice so duty to neighbour. And all of such will imply appeal to voice of conscience. As has been demonstrated over and over above and previously. See the point? KF kairosfocus
VL, still busy elsewhere. However, I did address the point, from the outset in OP. We are contingent beings, cf a graveyard. I have observed on a consistent pattern in argument and quarrelling, noting its general presence, EVEN IN ARGUMENTS OF THOSE OBJECTING TO THE OBSERVATION. That points to something core to reasoning and arguing, here, an expectation of implicitly acknowledged duty to truth, right reason, prudence etc, where conscience -- when sound -- is a faculty of the conscious individual that draws that pattern of obligation to our attention, often by a sense of inner pain called guilt. That conscience can be unsound or benumbed/deadened is manifest (and, sadly, fairly common), similar to how the sense of physical pain or other senses can be warped or damaged. Similarly, our faculty of reasoning, which is likely connected. However, the very concept of handicap, shows that there is a difference between the normal and the damaged or defective or lacking. All of this sort of understanding is reasonably expected of a responsible, reasonably intelligent twelve year old, standard reference level for newspapers. What remains even in cases of defective conscience, is duty to soundness (which may imply borrowing someone else's conscience, acknowledging the defect, similar to how persons commonly have assisting animals nowadays). Even if Hitler felt no compunctions, he should have attended to the voice of those with sound consciences around him in the German nation: we ought not kill our prophets. Thus too note the conscience shock of the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King. The duties obtain, and even in arguments of a Hitler, they are highly visible, esp in his March 1939 reply to U S President Roosevelt. That implicitly points to their binding nature and to our recognition of their presence, it is but a simple step to recognise mutuality. Observably pivotal to argument, inescapable, inescapably true, self-evident. But unprovable as the same inescapability means proofs inevitably implicitly pivot on what they would try to prove. First level, recognised and acknowledged, not proved, as Epictetus showed with a subset, first principles of logic. KF kairosfocus
Let's begin with: the space-time continuum we call the universe "was created." Let's not even address the "intelligently designed" aspect of this. What does it mean to say time and space were "created?" For a thing to have been created, there must be a "before" and "after" the point its creation, or else "was created" has no rational value. There cannot be a time before time itself was created because that would require a time before time was created. It's a nonsensical concept. Similarly, where was space created? If there was no space before space was created, where did that which created space exist? There had to be space for the creation of space. To "create space itself" is also a nonsensical statement because there's nowhere to create it. So, "the space-time continuum (or, "the universe," if that's what we mean by it) was created" is a nonsensical statement, whether or not it was intelligently designed. William J Murray
Jerry said:
Since the evidence is overwhelming that humans were either created or guided into existence by a higher intelligence,...
That definitional identification, selection assortment, arrangement and interpretation of evidence depends on unaddressed assumptions, just as KFs argument did, and they were exposed. Your view depends on: the nature what it means to be "human;" that your definition of "human" is all that our existence entails; the nature of that existence and its relationship to what you are drawing your evidence from; and the nature of the existence of the evidence itself. Ultimately, like KF, you are involved in circular reasoning; your reasoning and your evidence is entirely built from the very premises you are seeking to rationally justify. Like KF, you are ultimately making an argument built entirely from an unsupportable perspective that elevates an unsupportable inference above an existential fact. Again, until you or KF make the case for your existential premise, you haven't even built the foundation for an argument - at least, not one that addresses the nature and supposed purpose of our existence. In that argument, you certainly don't get your premises for free. William J Murray
For instance, I observe that we have many, many different stories about how we and the universe came about and how we are to behave, and that we speculate in many different ways about things we can not directly observe. Therefore, I conclude we were designed that way? I also observe that almost universally people in one group at some point eventually go to war with other people, try to kill them, and otherwise cause them great suffering. Therefore, I conclude we were designed that way? I observe that sex is a very powerful attractor, and there are great variations in how people engage it, what social customs they have around it, ways in which people do stupid things because of it, etc. Therefore we were designed that way? I'm not sure this line of reasoning gets us anyplace we aren't already at: looking at what people in fact do and the wide variation there is in such things as morals, religious beliefs, the exercise of conscience, etc. Viola Lee
I’m not sure pointing to objectives gets us any closer to answering the questions we are discussing.
If someone designs something in a certain way, one better pay attention to how the design functions in order to understand the objectives of the designer. jerry
A claim falsified by the fact that there are 50000+- suicides/year in the USA
Actually just the opposite. You are pointing to exceptions to the rule which actually reinforce there is a rule. You say that it isn’t a law but a statistical fact. The statistical fact is that in any year 99.99% of population don’t commit suicide. Why is that? Survival is built in. Do you drive a car? I do and each time I do there are anywhere from a few to more than a hundred situations where if the correct procedure is not taken, one could die or get seriously hurt. (Actually probably a lot more) But yet there are hours and hours of driving without seeing any instances of anyone not taking the proper procedures. Why because the millions of possible people you might encounter want to survive. It’s built in. In order not to die, they are obliged or have a requirement or duty to act in a certain way, to follow certain procedures. Beyond not dying, human beings seem to have a built in desire to want to flourish. Dale Carnegie said everyone wants to feel important because this is what he observed. If they want this then they are required to act in certain ways to achieve this. Obviously some are dysfunctional for various reasons and won’t but again they are the exception. If you want to deny this feel free to do so but I doubt many will agree with your assessment of human nature. Also the last time I saw anyone acting as if they did not have a duty to obey the law of gravity they were dead. There was a joke. A woman was being accused of killing her boy friend. She said he died of natural causes. The policeman said you pushed him off the side of a cliff. She said gravity was natural. The policeman then wrote that cause of death was COVID. jerry
Jerry: People prefer not to die A claim falsified by the fact that there are 50000+- suicides/year in the USA. (1.4m attempts.) At any rate, that individuals are generally programmed to want to survive isn't a "law", it's merely a statistical fact. Moreover, humans will generally kill others in order to survive if scarcity of resources becomes too extreme (and for a lot of other reasons.) Is that a "law" too? (The common thread being self interest.) Gravity is also a "law", but nobody would make the claim that we have some sort of "duty" to obey it. Concealed Citizen
Jerry writes, "Now you are into ID territory. Since the evidence is overwhelming that humans were either created or guided into existence by a higher intelligence, one has to deal with the objectives of the intelligence that is responsible for human origins snd human nature." Accepting your premises arguendo, as WJM would say, the question of objectives is still uite unknown. Why is the universe as it is, why life, why human beings, why consciousness. Is the "objective" just to have a world where interesting chemical and biological thing happen? Some would say that the existence of human beings were a specific objective, but others would doubt that. I'm not sure pointing to objectives gets us any closer to answering the questions we are discussing. Viola Lee
LCD writes of me, "That is the issue here: your thought is your chosen faith belief that preach to us: there are no true faith beliefs. Really? Except your faith belief ,all others faith beliefs are wrong?" Absolutely not the case. I'm not preaching: I'm just explaining what I believe. And I have never claimed my "faith beliefs" are true, any more than anyone else's They are choices that we have made to help give our understanding of things that cannot be truly know some structure. Viola Lee
Steve Alten2 But are they “true” because of some higher power, or are they “true” as a result of human nature and the nature of human interaction?
:) I didn't know there is such a process that develop morality from chemistry . This is the most insane belief that someone can hold with no evidence.
Viola Lee However, claiming that one’s faith beliefs can be be proven true to the exclusion of others beliefs on the same topic is wrong. That is the issue here: the difference between a chosen faith belief and the claim that something is necessarily true.
:) That is the issue here: your thought is your chosen faith belief that preach to us: there are no true faith beliefs. Really? Except your faith belief ,all others faith beliefs are wrong? Apply what you preach to your faith belief about faith beliefs . ;) "He catches the wise in their craftiness." (Job 15:5) Lieutenant Commander Data
But are they “true” because of some higher power, or are they “true” as a result of human nature and the nature of human interaction?
Now you are into ID territory. Since the evidence is overwhelming that humans were either created or guided into existence by a higher intelligence, one has to deal with the objectives of the intelligence that is responsible for human origins snd human nature. No escaping a higher intelligence or is it a higher power? jerry
Viola Lee “ The latter.” Agreed. Steve Alten2
I think we are not all using the same definition of "law" here. Viola Lee
Firstly, you’ll making an implicit unsupportable assertion that survival of humans is rooted in some “natural law” embedded in the root of reality. You are free to take it as a matter of faith, but that’s all it is. There is no “law.”
There most definitely is a law. It’s part of human nature that has been observed since the beginning of time. People prefer not to die. It’s built into all species. Universally observed. No one ever came across a species that did not have survival instincts. I suggest you read about natural law. You are free to deny such a law but there will probably only be a few people on the planet that would agree with you. You might find one or two here.
the “duty” mentioned above, is a subjective, relative “duty” based on self-interest. When one tribe slaughters another tribe so they can take their resources, those in the assaulting tribe aren’t thinking about any “duty” to the survival of the slaughtered tribe. Quite the opposite.
But they are acting on the duties to their own tribe. There’s nothing subjective about it. It is part of survival. So there are duties that flow from their survival objectives by your own admission. . Eventually they all want more than just surviving. Part of human nature is to want more. It’s a law. (Probably due to dopamine and serotonin flows that are built in) Then cooperation becomes a way to achieve this desire in human nature. So cooperation becomes a duty Interesting comments. jerry
The latter. Viola Lee
Viola Lee ” However, claiming that one’s faith beliefs can be be proven true to the exclusion of others beliefs on the same topic is wrong.” In general, I agree. But I don’t think the major issue is whether a certain belief/duty is “true”, but rather what the source of this belief is. I think it is fair to say that the goal of most people is to live in, and benefit from, a stable society. Given this as a starting point there are certain behaviours/rules that the majority of members in this society must follow in order for society to remain stable. Don’t lie, don’t steal. Don’t kill. Etc. I think we probably agree that these are necessary/true. But are they “true” because of some higher power, or are they “true” as a result of human nature and the nature of human interaction? Steve Alten2
Good points, CC. Belief in some "higher" source of duty, be it to reason, or conscience, or whatever, is an act of faith. All of us have metaphysical beliefs that we choose to believe without much evidence, and calling that "by faith" is one way to look at it. However, claiming that one's faith beliefs can be be proven true to the exclusion of others beliefs on the same topic is wrong. That is the issue here: the difference between a chosen faith belief and the claim that something is necessarily true. Viola Lee
Jerry: First level, survival. Inescapable that somethings were inherent in humans that led to survival. Inescapable that there were duties to others for this survival to succeed. Firstly, you'll making an implicit unsupportable assertion that survival of humans is rooted in some "natural law" embedded in the root of reality. You are free to take it as a matter of faith, but that's all it is. There is no "law." Secondly, the "duty" mentioned above, is a subjective, relative "duty" based on self-interest. When one tribe slaughters another tribe so they can take their resources, those in the assaulting tribe aren't thinking about any "duty" to the survival of the slaughtered tribe. Quite the opposite. Concealed Citizen
The argument that moral behaviors and norms, varied as they are, are necessary for the well-being and survival of society is a conclusion based on reason and empirical evidence about the nature of human beings.
That is called natural law. Hurrah!!! First level, survival. Inescapable that somethings were inherent in humans that led to survival. Inescapable that there were duties to others for this survival to succeed. Second level, flourishing. Inescapable as we have flourished especially in last 300 years that there are some inherent characteristics of human nature that led to this. And that some duties flow from the need to help this flourishing.. What was missing from natural law theorists, including many who are cited here, from its beginning till 17th century and for some much later than this was the idea of freedom. This recognition led to many other duties for flourishing that were not present prior to this time. One being education of others. Another being the encouragement of the actual freedom of others. But before the recognition of freedom as an inescapable human desire or part of the nature of humans, there were other inescapable human characteristics that led to more than survival. This was what the Greeks and Romans were observing since each built an empire for advancement. Since these characteristics led to more than survival, there were duties that flowed from them. If you want to call this conscience, then I will have no problem but these duties flowed from a part of human nature and it led to some progress. What is moral is what advances the survival and flourishing of humans. This extends to salvation for those who believe in it which will require more than what is required for survival and flourishing in this world. Already been summarized above and not in conflict with anything Kf has stated. I believe Kf is observing correctly that some of these duties are being curtailed for the masses by elites who are just as self centered and interested in personal power as Tamerlane was. They are not cutting off heads but they are destroying individuals who disagree with them and threaten their power. If one wants to analyze this from a natural law perspective, this will not lead to a long term success for anyone including the elites who are advocating these eliminations of freedoms. In the short term they will succeed with more power but in the long term they are destroying what is giving them power. Aside: while education is a desired objective for all, there is no evidence it makes anyone wiser about the world. Hans Rosling observed in general that the more educated one was, the more ignorant they were about the state of the world. jerry
The argument that moral behaviors and norms, varied as they are, are necessary for the well-being and survival of society is a conclusion based on reason and empirical evidence about the nature of human beings. One doesn't have to believe in some natural law embedded in the root of reality to understand that. KF is making a much stronger claim concerning us being "morally governed" creatures (see the OP), but he seems to be unable to justify that by any means other than appealing to the conclusions that we can all reach, as stated in my first sentence above. It is this claim about conscience being existentially necessary at the root of reality and thus an inescapable duty that he just asserts without showing why that is the case. And repeatedly quoting people from the same intellectual background as himself, such as Plato, Cicero, the Bible, Blackstone, etc., is not an argument, as they are just making the same assertions with no more supporting arguments than KF is. Viola Lee
In your own words, succinctly perhaps, what is your argument about the necessary and inescapable existence of conscience at the root of reality?
Answered. Without it we would have perished a long time ago. You should read natural law theory. jerry
KF, you are not addressing WJM's question: why is conscience existentially, at the root level of reality, necessary and inescapable. I can do no better than to quote WJM:
Appealing to undesirable consequences is not sufficient. The fact that it’s a “generally observed major feature of the inner life” is not sufficient. Appealing to emotion via storytelling is not sufficient.”
In your own words, succinctly perhaps, what is your argument about the necessary and inescapable existence of conscience at the root of reality? Viola Lee
Thanks, Bob. I try to use my hate for good causes! :-) Viola Lee
LCD @ 899 (responding to Viola Lee) -
Conscience is existentially at the root of reality because you hate that idea and fight to prove it wrong and always move the goal posts
Wow, Viola, I didn't realised you had that power to alter the root of reality. Bob O'H
PS: We are back to Plato and the ship of state . . .
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 issue of competence and character as qualifications to rule] 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 [--> the sophists, the Demagogues, Alcibiades and co, etc]; 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 [--> implies a need for a corruption-restraining minority providing proverbial salt and light, cf. Ac 27, as well as justifying a governing structure turning on separation of powers, checks and balances], 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
VL, no, I am using Kant's Categorical Imperative as a diagnostic. Evil and folly are characteristically ruinous in the end. Does that not mean that we can use that to diagnose per the premise that the good [truthfulness] is universalisable but the evil [lying] as a parasite on it, is not? Should we imagine that merely because we can quote a Latin phrase that tells a half-truth, we can ignore that diagnosis and merrily proceed on a voyage of folly? KF kairosfocus
Viola Lee What he has NOT done is show why conscience is existentially, at the root level of reality, necessary and inescapable.
:) Conscience is existentially at the root of reality because you hate that idea and fight to prove it wrong and always move the goal posts . Hate is a powerful indicator there under the mud is a root of reality . If this question wouldn't sting you on the personal level you would have ignored it long ago .
Our question is how do they point, and better yet, actually establish, that at the root level of reality we are morally governed.
:) If this is a moral question, you lost the argument ,proving KF point. PS: of course this is a fundamental thought that it is the basis of morality's house. Immediately under this tought is God. Atheists know that . Lieutenant Commander Data
Viola: Our question is how do they point, and better yet, actually establish, that at the root level of reality we are morally governed. That keeps getting put off “to another time.” Checkmate. (You and WJM.) As my dear old uncle Louie used to say in his thick Brooklin Italian accent, "eventually, kid, you's gotta put up or be shuttin' up da mouth." Concealed Citizen
why conscience is existentially, at the root level of reality, necessary and inescapable.
Conscience is necessary for survival and since we have survived, inescapable that it is there in prevalence. It is even more necessary for flourishing. So maybe there is something evolutionary to this survival thing or else it was there from the start. Either way it’s built in. Obviously not in everyone as we can see here from those who say they don’t have the obligation and choose to be a parasite. Morality is just another name for what facilitates what is desirable for humans. Survival! Flourishing! Salvation! Morality is what facilities each. Been answered several times on this thread. jerry
Jerry @ 893, If I am reading you correctly, what you are describing is an evolutionary stable strategy. And I don't really disagree with it. There are certain behaviours that are incompatible to a stable society. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out many of them. Being trusted by others benefits us. A person who constantly lies will not be trusted. That is why we teach our kids not to lie. But what we are debating is the source of these "duties". Are they learned behaviours or are they inherent? Steve Alten2
Jerry says, "Kf argues that this is not a healthy choice." On the one hand, yes, KF is using argumentum ad consequentiam. See his remark above that "were everyone to try to escape, ruinous chaos results." What he has NOT done is show why conscience is existentially, at the root level of reality, necessary and inescapable. Many of us have made practical and reasoned arguments about why we should do unto others ... and otherwise employ moral principles, but that is because our reason and the human potential for empathy make that clear to us. Notice how KF never addresses, however, the argument about existentially necessary and inescapable. Above he writes, "Where such point as to the nature and roots of reality is for another time but for sure they point to our being rational, responsible, morally governed." Our question is how do they point, and better yet, actually establish, that at the root level of reality we are morally governed. That keeps getting put off "to another time." Viola Lee
WJM, actually one of the keys to the breakthrough of modern science was being willing to see where to start, with a going concern world and key patterns. In the case we have, we find ourselves in the midst of arguments and quarrels, with knowledge a key issue, tied to credible truth. The pattern I identified is one of the pattern of oughts that we so often try to self-servingly escape even as we expect others to abide by them and find that were everyone to try to escape, ruinous chaos results. The test case of lying is a good one to see this. Truthfulness by contrast is universalisable. It's not hard to see the very strong pattern in arguments and quarrels. Indeed, inescapability highlights that when we argue, especially at the intensity termed quarrelling, the listed first duties are typically right there on the surface as the treads we expect to give our arguments traction: to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, so too fairness and justice etc. They are right there in your own just now. We then notice that these are root level, attempts to prove are found to be already embedding what they try to demonstrate, as Epictetus showed to his interlocutor. Inescapable, root level, so, first inescapable truths, self evident. Where such point as to the nature and roots of reality is for another time but for sure they point to our being rational, responsible, morally governed, indeed such are part of our humanity: something looking like us but out of this has been zombified or something. As I drew out at 555, they reflect power of choice, and indicate first duties of choice. We may fail, but then is has always been challenged by ought.Which is as core to being human as it gets. KF kairosfocus
Try to summarize. We have a duty to support our fellow citizens because if we don’t, they and us will perish. Since survival is a desired objective (far from only one,) this means citizens have fundamental duties to others to survive. So the choice is a duty to others which is also self preservation or otherwise perish. Most will choose not perishing. Now is it necessary for all to have this duty? A hundred years ago back into antiquity, probably yes. A few individual exceptions have always existed. But today is different, some parasites can say they do not have this duty and they will still survive. But how many can say this before we all perish? Certainly not all or not even most or even many can deny this duty. But yes, it is possible today for some to survive without all having the duty to others. So yes, some parasites can say they have no duty. But not all can make this choice. So are the people with no conscience for duties (parasites) depending on others to have a conscience and fulfill their duties so they as parasites can survive? It seems that way. Kf argues that this is not a healthy choice. I agree. A lot of people here seem not interested in survival or flourishing. I don’t believe them. I would look to survival as the origin of duties to others. If one wants to go beyond plain survival and on to flourishing, then the duties expand and become more imperative. jerry
KF: have noted the reality of conscience as a baseline fact and commonplace. If you choose to deny or denigrate such, we can only duly note the sort of contortions you have forced yourself into in your line of thinking. WJM:I have done no such thing. I completely agree that the vast majority of people have a conscience and that it is commonplace. My view, FWIW, anyone who works with criminal elements in society, knows damn well that "conscience" is something not-at-all present in a great number of humans. Most people apparently have the capacity to develop a conscience, depending on parents and other societial programming, but conscience is hardly a given. In other words, humans are capable of being programmed (read: brainwashed) into feeling guilty about whatever they are programmed to feel guilty about. (My dog apparently has a limited form of this capacity too. Lions don't.) But it's far from any sort of "universal" pointer to some kind of universal morality or "duty". If you're programmed to feel guilty about not killing "infidels" for Allah, your conscience will make you feel guilty about not doing it. It's entirely dependent on your programming. Concealed Citizen
KF, you have not shown reasons why conscience is, in WJM's words, "existentially necessary and inescapable." Also, as WJM succinctly said, "Appealing to undesirable consequences is not sufficient. The fact that it’s a “generally observed major feature of the inner life” is not sufficient. Appealing to emotion via storytelling is not sufficient." In 200 words or less, summarize your argument. Viola Lee
Kairosfocus "VL & SA2, I cannot but notice that, consistently, in objecting to first duties of reason, you inescapably appeal to them. " You just can't stop assaulting that deceased equine. We have been over this many times. Young children have to be taught not to lie. This requires positive and negative feedback. About a century ago Pavlov demonstrated how repeated feedback can result in a specific behaviour. Violating these indoctrinated behaviours makes us feel uncomfortable. There is no doubt about that. We have labeled this feeling as "guilt". Steve Alten2
KF said:
WJM, I have laid out reasons above. KF
Well, the world if full of people with reasons, KF. I've laid out the undeniable facts that expose your "reasons" as being the result of an ideological commitment to an unsupportable inference. I've also laid out the logic that demonstrates "conscience" is not a self-evident existential truth at all - in fact, I've shown how your own words, and how you argue for it, reveal it is not. William J Murray
Aaaaaannnnd .... this is why the original post at the top of the thread starts at the middle to make its case. You want to talk about our "existential nature" and how it must relate to everything extending thereof? That's exactly what I'm doing. Only, I'm just about the only person here willing to actually accept what our existential nature actually is. William J Murray
WJM, I have laid out reasons above. KF kairosfocus
So, we - rationally - must begin with the factual, inescapable nature of our existence as mental (conscious) entities experiencing mental information. That is the necessary starting point of "reality" because it's not a premise, it's not just "a" fact, it's THE essential, necessary, inescapable fact. Every rational hypothesis must extend from and refer to that fact or it has become divorced from factual reality. Thus, the hypothesis that "a world exists external of mind" is entirely divorced from reality and fact. It can be properly considered delusional, .... well, after one has been apprised of the situation and the logic. Before you understand the the logic, it's just a categorical mislabeling, or a common conceptual error. Errors of thought do not represent a delusion; if, however, after one has been apprised of and understands our existential facts and the logic, they still insist on the existence of a world external of mind, that's when they have chosen deliberate self-delusion. William J Murray
Back to ERT vs MRT: KF says I'm waving away the universally-accepted "fact" of a world external of mind as made apparent by our senses. KF and others here believe that sensory information represents a world external of mind. KF has also said that unless we can be confident that what we are interacting with via our senses is real, we are lost to "grand delusion." I agree with that; unless what we are interacting with via our senses is real, we are lost to grand delusion. However, understanding this statement requires a clear understanding of the terms "senses" and "real." A world external of mind is not a "fact." It's an interpretation of facts. The fact is that we, as experiencers, are interacting with information in mind. That is the indisputable, unavoidable, existential fact of what our "senses" are. What is entirely "disputable" is that this information is "coming from" someplace outside of mind when the only place we actually interact with it is in mind. Our "senses" are all experienced in mind as it interacts with information regardless of where that information comes from. The common, almost universal inference (hat tip to Concerned Citizen) from the existential fact (consciousness interacting with mental information regardless of where that information comes from) is that the information refers to a world external of mind. KF, then, is arguing that an inference from the fact is the nature of what is real, not the fact itself. MRT is not an inference or an interpretation of a fact; it is accepting the fact itself as the nature of reality. It is accepting the unavoidable, existential fact of what "to sense" is, and where and how it occurs, as real. Thus, "a world external of mind" is not and cannot be a fact; it is an inference from a fact. KF is attempting to argue that an inference is more factual, or more real, than the indisputable, unavoidable, existential fact itself. KF argues that accepting this existential reality fact that underlies any inference from it, in and of itself as "what is factually real" leads to "grand delusion." If there is anything that can be said to be a "grand delusion," it is insisting that an inference, or interpretation of an existential fact, is the reality, and that the existential fact itself is not the reality. ERT, when believed to be the reality of our existence, can only been seen as such when one denies the actual, factual, existentially inescapable nature of reality as reality and substitutes an inference from a that fact for the fact itself. As soon as one believes that reality is something other what it necessarily is, that is the only doorway into "grand delusion." ERT, when believed to be the factual nature of our existence, is not just an inference from the fact, it has become contradictory to the fact itself. You don't get to substitute an inference for the fact and call the inference the fact itself, much less call the inference "reality" in contradiction to the fact itself, or "more real" and "less prone to delusion" than the fact itself. Until your worldview accepts the inescapable, factual nature of our existence as conscious (mental) entities interacting with mental information and mentally processing that information into mental experiences, you're the one with a delusional worldview because you are insisting that an inference is a fact. You're the one insisting that something that cannot, even in principle, ever be empirically observed or directly interacted with is the criteria for "what is real" and our only bulwark against delusion. You're the one insisting that the factual, inescapable nature of our existence as mental beings interacting with mental information is "prone to delusion." If we have to rely on an unprovable inference above the fact itself, if we have to divorce ourselves from the very inescapable nature of our existence by insisting an inaccessible other world exists in order to avoid delusion, we are indeed already lost, as KF would say. William J Murray
KF said:
WJM, I have noted the reality of conscience as a baseline fact and commonplace. If you choose to deny or denigrate such, we can only duly note the sort of contortions you have forced yourself into in your line of thinking.
I have done no such thing. I completely agree that the vast majority of people have a conscience and that it is commonplace. I also agree that there are things that would "shock the conscience" of pretty much everyone who is not a sociopath. However, that does not raise it to the level of an unavoidable, existential necessity. You are the one doing the contortions, KF, by trying to make it "the same as" fundamental truth-telling, logic and math while you have clearly admitted it is not in the same category as those things.
I spoke to duty to sound conscience, as I just noted to VL and SA2, as warping and benumbing of conscience are sadly commonplace too.
You cannot "warp and benumb" yourself to avoid the existentially necessary and unavoidable. Sociopaths can't avoid fundamental truth-telling, the principles of logic or the realities of mathematics and geometry. Sentient existence requires these things. Obviously, sentient existence does not require a conscience or else you would be able to make that case. KF, why are you bringing in the "contingent being" phrase? Can you explain what you are talking about? Do you mean to say I am a "caused being" since I could either exist or not exist, so something necessarily caused me? If so, you're sneaking yet another premise and asserting it as a fact without proper discussion. BTW, KF, I'd tread carefully trying to make that case, because if I am a caused being, I cannot have free will. "Significantly free" is not "free." Causing me to exist is a existential-level violation of my free will because, if I was caused to be, I did not agree to be caused and, at an existential level, I would be a victim in all things that ensued thereof regardless of what choices I make because all off those options would be forced on me. You don't get to insert your interpretations of what facts mean into a debate as facts themselves, KF. You don't get to say I'm "waving away" a fact when what I'm doing is actually challenging your interpretation of the meaning of the actual fact in question and that fact's relationship to other facts. Here are a couple of inconvenient facts: you said our first duties can be recognized by their unavoidable, existential necessity. Conscience is clearly not an unavoidable, existential necessity. Therefore, by your own definitions and logic concerning the facts, we do not have a first moral duty to conscience.
In suggesting question-begging you just erroneously suggested duty to right reason, truth and again sound conscience.
You're trying to slip "sound conscience" in. Nothing I have said or argued makes an appeal to "sound conscience." It doesn't matter what your "conscience" is telling you; you can either make your case via logic and facts or you cannot. Your conscience has no bearing on that until and unless you can make the case it necessarily, unavoidably does. William J Murray
WJM, I have noted the reality of conscience as a baseline fact and commonplace. If you choose to deny or denigrate such, we can only duly note the sort of contortions you have forced yourself into in your line of thinking. You should further note, I spoke to duty to sound conscience, as I just noted to VL and SA2, as warping and benumbing of conscience are sadly commonplace too. Where, no, I am not begging questions in so speaking of the normal conscience etc, we are dealing here with root level inescapable first duties, which are like facets of a jewel, each reflects the contribution of the others and in turn each contributes to the others, the hologram-microcosm principle.(Note here, the interactions among, say, Newton's three laws of motion: L1 as special case of L2 and yet conceptually prior to understand inertia, L2 as directly tied to L3, the law of interaction which is the context of force and its effects, etc.) In suggesting question-begging you just erroneously suggested duty to right reason, truth and again sound conscience. of course, there are the seriously abnormal, with malformed or dysfunctional consciences. Nowadays we call them sociopaths or psychopaths, highly machiavellian personalities and draw up metrics of the dark triad of disorders etc. Even these, are forced to appeal to our awareness of first duties to gain traction for their rhetoric, as Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al so clearly exemplified. KF PS: Notice, the ethical-legal notice on the linked test. kairosfocus
VL & SA2, I cannot but notice that, consistently, in objecting to first duties of reason, you inescapably appeal to them. Which, of course, is what was noted from the outset. Where, for your latest talking points to have persuasive traction, you are in fact appealing to the same inner witness of conscience guided duty to truth, right reason, prudence etc that you seek to discredit. When I point to conscience as a baseline and characteristic reality of that contingent creature called a human being -- see a graveyard -- I am speaking of a generally recognised fact of life. We don't see tigers mourning over the deer they pull down or the child going to the well they take with equal facility. We are shocked in conscience, for cause, when a sexual predator kidnaps, binds, sexually tortures and murders a child and we wonder what has gotten out of whack with his conscience. Speaking of which, you will note that I have consistently spoken of duty to sound conscience, an issue directly tied to right reason, prudence, truth and justice as due balance, also to evil as perversion, frustration, privation from proper and often naturally evident end. The due end of a child is not to serve as a living toy for some pervert taking pleasure alike from violation and helpless, fearful struggle, then to be snuffed out as the final act of desecration. KF kairosfocus
LCD said:
Well, this is the test .
What "test?" William J Murray
KF said:
WJM, it is a commonplace of humanity that we have consciences and do address a sense of inner peace or turmoil, especially guilt. You can choose to dismiss a generally observed major feature of the inner life of a known contingent creature if you please.
I haven't dismissed it. I just haven't let you elevate it to the status of being an unavoidable existential necessity or a self-evident truth without giving a proper reason why it should be considered such. Appealing to undesirable consequences is not sufficient. The fact that it's a "generally observed major feature of the inner life" is not sufficient. Appealing to emotion via storytelling is not sufficient.
That simply leads us to conclude for cause that your root disagreement is with facts.
What fact have I disagreed with? All I've done is point out that your argument depends on conscience having some self-evidently true quality, and that you have clearly not made that case because you cannot tell me what aspect of conscience is existentially necessary and unavoidable. You have had no problem detailing that for truth-telling and right reason.
...a known core characteristic of the -->normal<--- human being,...
You just admitted that conscience is neither inescapable or existentially necessary and therefore does not represent a "moral first duty."
Which sounds familiar: you have waved away the facts of the common world we inhabit, now you wave away the double facts of our contingency and a known core characteristic of the normal human being, conscience. That’s a pattern, not a good one.
I haven't "waved away" any facts whatsoever. Disagreeing about what facts mean is not a disagreement with a fact. What is the "fact" of my "contingency" you are referring to? Could you explain that? William J Murray
William J Murray what if I found out the “truth” in some regards – like say, about life after death – and it made me miserable? Well, I’d rather not know the truth.
Well, this is the test . The higher the target, the harder the test.
Viola Lee Observation: “commonplace” does not equal “existentially necessary and unavoidable”
"Faith is a core belief so is fundamental for identity." Andy Sims Lieutenant Commander Data
Viola Lee "Observation: “commonplace” does not equal “existentially necessary and unavoidable”" I have noticed that some people use something that is "commonplace" as compelling evidence in support of their viewpoint, but do not accept something that is "commonplace" as compelling evidence when it runs counter to their viewpoint. A phrase about eating cake comes to mind. Steve Alten2
Viola Lee FYI: I noticed something: both Sandy and Lieutenant Commander Data spell “idea” as “ideea”, which is quite unusual. Also, both punctuate commas incorrectly: instead of this, they do this ,.
Your attention for details is impressive. Not. Sandy and LCD probably are the same person .Who knows? Your attention and reasoning is very selective once is very sharp with a comma (!) :))) but lose his sharpness(in a very strange way) when is to assess the most fundamental questions of life ,like a qualitative difference between christianity ,budhism and hinduism. Often our attention and reason are not used to find the truth if it's inconvenient and would make us to change our life lifestyle we are accustomed to. “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. A comma . ”? Blaise Pascal, Lieutenant Commander Data
Observation: "commonplace" does not equal "existentially necessary and unavoidable" Viola Lee
WJM, it is a commonplace of humanity that we have consciences and do address a sense of inner peace or turmoil, especially guilt. You can choose to dismiss a generally observed major feature of the inner life of a known contingent creature if you please. That simply leads us to conclude for cause that your root disagreement is with facts. Which sounds familiar: you have waved away the facts of the common world we inhabit, now you wave away the double facts of our contingency and a known core characteristic of the normal human being, conscience. That's a pattern, not a good one unfortunately. KF kairosfocus
LCD said:
This one that make you to search the truth (to inquire, challenge , interogate , examine ) or whatever[] give you a sense of solace, comfort, fulfilment .
Personally, beyond self-evident and necessary truths, I skip the middle-man of "searching for truth" and instead just seek what I want directly: enjoyment, comfort, fulfillment and happiness. I figured out a long time ago that, however it happened, the idea that "finding truth" (beyond those fundamental, existential requirements) would also bring that which I really wanted (happiness, fulfillment) was just something programmed into me. I mean, what if I found out the "truth" in some regards - like say, about life after death - and it made me miserable? Well, I'd rather not know the truth. Ignorance, in at least some ways, can be bliss. William J Murray
CC @870:
I think “inferred” is a better term for this.
You're right. William J Murray
LCD @869, I agree and have agreed arguendo to KF's definitional categorization of existentially necessary / unavoidable attributes of sentient existence as "moral first duties." As I have said, he has not made that case for "pangs" or "shocks" of conscience, which I think would relate to your moral formula as variables in the program. IOW, you can't get from "existentially necessary /unavoidable" to "it's wrong to harm others for my entertainment" logically without inserting a non-essential, avoidable variable. Otherwise, you wouldn't have sociopaths or people thinking nothing whatsoever of owning slaves or tossing defective babies off the cliff. William J Murray
FYI: I noticed something: both Sandy and Lieutenant Commander Data spell "idea" as "ideea", which is quite unusual. Also, both punctuate commas incorrectly: instead of this, they do this ,. Viola Lee
WJM: The external existence of “the sun” can only ever be hypothetical. I think "inferred" is a better term for this. Concealed Citizen
William J Murray Sorry, KF, you don’t get that one for free. Until you can explain what aspect of conscience is existentially necessary and inescapable,
This one that make you to search the truth (to inquire, challenge , interogate , examine ) or whatever[] give you a sense of solace, comfort, fulfilment . PS: The Truth about some action/ideeas is not always evident ,not because moral laws are not objective(moral law= like mathematical operators:*,/,+,-)but because the use of different variables ;value 'a' for you could be not equal with my 'a' ,that's why using correct moral law can get erroneous results and people think that moral law is faulty or "relative" :) Lieutenant Commander Data
sociopaths exist.
No, they don’t exist. They are just mental constructs. jerry
Sandy said:
A representation of sun is not sun.
That's all we ever have of what we experiences as "the sun:" mental representations, either visual or other mental sensations, like heat. The external existence of "the sun" can only ever be hypothetical. The error of thought is that these mental experiences represent something external of mind; they are representations formed out of information regardless of where that information comes from. You hypothesize that information comes from outside of mind. I do not because there is no reason to do so. William J Murray
CC said:
All interesting questions, but not relevant AFAICT to what physicists do, which is run experiments on physical objects and make testable models out of the evidence.
How many physicists bring in a team of people to see if the results of their experiments can be affected by those people focusing on a certain outcome for their experiment while sitting in a room 100 miles away? William J Murray
CC @861: It's funny how much of what you said mirrors thoughts I was having before reading it while I was writing my previous comment. I thought about mentioning Einstein's aversion to the implications of QM theory, and I thought about bringing up psychical research. Perhaps it's just because I've been thinking about and experimenting with MRT for decades that this seems so obvious to me. If the physics of what we call the "universe" is actually just the result of program code, and we have access to that code and we can change it, this means we can change what we call physical laws. Physicist John Wheeler believed that we, as observers, are in the process of not only generating the universe we experience now, but we are generating its entire history. We have fundamentally evidenced this capacity in experiments (entanglement, delayed choice, quantum eraser.) In medicine, the placebo effect would be better characterized and researched, whereas now it's largely just used as a comparative. Did you know there has actually been research that was able to make the placebo effect more effective? However, how much money do you think could be made by the pharmaceutical companies if one could make the placebo effect more effective than any drug at least as far as relieving symptoms? Did you know that research into dissociative identity disorder revealed that eye color can change depending on which personality was in charge? That one identity was diabetic, while another was not? How much of what goes on in our body can be better explained and utilized for our benefit if we understood it as being a mental experience being run by mental programs that can be better managed via mental programming, or psychology? What is the placebo effect, if not physiology being affected by psychology? You might be aware of the "remote viewing" documents recently declassified by the government, which fully and completely validates the capacity to "psychically" view remote locations producing verified information about that location. What are the extended possibilities of this capacity if it was pursued in the open under an accepted MRT and not ridiculed and shunned by every scientist who wants to maintain their credibility? William J Murray
KF said:
By our nature we are conscience guided ...
Sorry, KF, you don't get that one for free. Until you can explain what aspect of conscience is existentially necessary and inescapable, this is where your logic fails and is replaced by bald ideological assertion that has a counterfactual: sociopaths exist. William J Murray
CC, First, I want to tell you that I greatly appreciate the way you are engaging in this discussion. It's civil, it's thoughtful, and you're providing excellent questions and challenges. Thanks for that.
There is no “shared mental experience.” I have my experience and you have yours. That’s what makes us individuals. That we share something outside of our individual conscience experience is not contraversial (unless one embraces solipsism. Arguendo, let’s not go there.) There is something external to my experience that I do not control and cannot fully explain. MRT accepts that- you posit a “shared module.”
You are right, the phrase "shared mental experience" can be misleading, but let me explain it. If we assume MRT arguendo for the purpose of exploring it and rationally criticizing it internally, it means that what we are actually experiencing is entirely in a mental reality comprised of information. All experiences are mental experiences (as Jerry points out, this is a trivially true statement in any theory of reality.) "Shared mental experiences" are experiences that are corroborated by another individual when they say their experience matches ours in specific ways. "This here is a red brick wall." "I agree." It doesn't mean I'm in someone else's head having their exact same personal experience. Maybe I should think of a different phrase to categorized that set of mental experiences, like "transpersonal experiences?" "Transpersonal Experience Modules."
Beyond that you’re asserting that MRT explains the evidence better, but I have yet to see you explain why it does.
Well, for starters it's more efficient; it doesn't require hypothesizing an entire domain of reality that can never be empirically experienced. So, by Occam's Razor alone it explains the evidence better. Also, IMO, it's better in that it predicts (or retrodicts) the results of quantum theory experimentation because it properly characterizes it as fundamentally different from classical physics or general relativity. It's the science of understanding of how programming works vs the science of modeling the experiential results of the programming. This is why the results of QM experiments appear to be observer dependent and can even, apparently, conflict between observers and determine the past. It also explains instantaneous transfers of information that occurs with entanglement. William J Murray
There is an old saying
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
There is too much time on this site worrying about the pigs. jerry
WJM,
Changing that worldview led to further thought experiments and ideas, which led to new experiments as innovations in technology allowed.
Sure, because the evidence garnered from experiments led them to change their views. They had no reason to do that prior to the results. Old paradigms die hard. Einstein fundamentally didn't like the implications of QM, esp wrt to the contradictions with General Relativity. He wasn't exactly without interest in the matter. But experimental science marches on. And people are free to embrace whatever interpretations they want.
Science does not operate free of bias and worldview; it govern how scientists think and interpret facts. How many scientists do you think are setting up experiments now based on MRT, or are interpreting facts and evidence under an MRT model?
From what I can tell, MRT is more in the realm of psychical research, not physics. Please provide an example how adopting MRT could provide any sort of beneficial guidance to physicists (and other physical sciences) doing their research and experiments. Concealed Citizen
WJM, I will pick up just one point for now: >>Just because most people would find X behavior “shocking to the conscience,” or would agree that widespread engagement in that behavior would lead to undesirable results, does not even begin to make the case that any statement of conscience is “self-evidently true” or that conscience is a necessary and unavoidable aspect of our existence.>> 1: By our nature we are conscience guided responsibly free and rational creatures and part of that message is a sense of inner peace or turmoil and guilt based on our own moral self-judgement. 2: Classically, persuasion is by pathos ethos logos, where pathos is roughly emotive. However, it is not the feelings that count but perceptions and judgements, i.e. there is a deep cognitive aspect to emotive responses, including that the voice of conscience is part of the self judgement we face or can cloud or benumb. 3: So, shocking and awakening then reflecting on conscience is relevant. KF kairosfocus
WJM @855, All interesting questions, but not relevant AFAICT to what physicists do, which is run experiments on physical objects and make testable models out of the evidence. Concealed Citizen
CC said:
Umm, well, physicists have various views about that, but it doesn’t matter what they think ultimately underlies phenomena, because it doesn’t make any difference with regard to how the science is actually carried out. If all physicists adopted MRT how would that change the way the science is carried out?
Of course worldviews matter when it comes to how science is carried out. Worldviews frame how scientists think about phenomena, and that framing dictates how they organize experimentation and interpret results. This is why the results of the double-slit experiment (as an example) were so shocking and unexpected and why further such experiments have made at least some physicists question the nature of reality and change their worldview to view consciousness and information as fundamental, and "matter" as secondary. Changing that worldview led to further thought experiments and ideas, which led to new experiments as innovations in technology allowed. Experiments nobody convinced of the old paradigm would even be able to imagine because they were ridiculous questions under that worldview. Science does not operate free of bias and worldview; it govern how scientists think and interpret facts. How many scientists do you think are setting up experiments now based on MRT, or are interpreting facts and evidence under an MRT model? William J Murray
WJM: We experience the shared mental experience world directly, so it is not hypothetical. There is no "shared mental experience." I have my experience and you have yours. That's what makes us individuals. That we share something outside of our individual conscience experience is not contraversial (unless one embraces solipsism. Arguendo, let's not go there.) There is something external to my experience that I do not control and cannot fully explain. MRT accepts that- you posit a "shared module." Beyond that you're asserting that MRT explains the evidence better, but I have yet to see you explain why it does. Concealed Citizen
William J MurrayMarch 8, 2021 at 4:20 am People think about things that exist as thoughts or mental images, memories or mental experiences, and then use them as examples of things not in mind. Stomach? I doubt anyone here has ever even experienced a “stomach” other than as various mental comforts or discomforts they mentally associated with a “stomach.”
Sun is not in inside your mind . If you look at sun(not advisable) in your mind is formed an image of sun . A representation of sun is not sun. A picture of sun is not sun . A thought about sun is not sun. A feeling about sun is not sun. A colour about sun is not sun. :) PS: if everything you percieve is not real what make you think you are real and if you are not real ,your ideeas are also NOT REAL . ;) Sandy
CC said:
MRT posits a “hypothetical world” too,
We experience the shared mental experience world directly, so it is not hypothetical. What is theoretical (as opposed to merely hypothetical) is how that directly experienced shared mental experience world works.
I don’t see a functional, practical difference between that and the ERT view. Same thing. Different terms.
No, not nearly "the same thing."
What’s the functional, practical difference between the “hypothetical world” that you seem to be mocking, and your shared “module”? And are you saying that adopting the MRT hypothesis provides superior “access” to the shared “module”?
There's the million dollar question. Good on you for recognizing it's really the only question that actually matters in this debate: does MRT provide any functional, practical advantage over ERT? You probably don't recognize the extreme practical and functional potential because we haven't discussed that aspect - or, because you haven't had time to think through the ramifications of MRT. If reality is experienced by programs processing information, who is in charge of the programming? Can we change the variables in the algorithms? What other sets of information are available for us to access? How much freedom do we have to modify the module in terms of what the individual is personally experiencing in a particular "shared experience" module? Are there other "shared experience" modules available that we can also experience, much like having access to various virtual world games on our computer? The potential functional and practical difference is enormous. Using a virtual world game as our model, the difference between MRT and ERT is that in ERT you believe you are the character in the virtual world and you believe the virtual world is the real world with immutable physical laws and characteristics. In MRT, you are the player/programmer, and the only limitations to what you can program into your experience are those which represents the laws of programming itself, or the laws of mind (logic, math, etc.) William J Murray
WJM: Of course, most physicists continue to attempt to interpret the results of QM experimentation in a way that salvages their basic framework of material or physical reality. I doubt you could support this claim. Physics is largely an experimental science and also mathematical consistency. Although pop physicists may go on about various speculative ideas that tickle the ears of their audience, real science is about doing experiments and trying to fit the results into a model. And if necessary, alter or replace the model. Physicists are well aware that things like particle/wave, superposition reduction, correlation, delayed choice, quantum eraser, etc, seem to go contrary to "common sense" view of reality. This is why various interpretations of QM exist. Whether someone thinks "physical reality really and truly exists" (whatever that means) or not is irrelevant to how the science is actually carried out.
Physicists think they are studying an actual, external, physical universe and not entirely mental phenomena.
Umm, well, physicists have various views about that, but it doesn't matter what they think ultimately underlies phenomena, because it doesn't make any difference with regard to how the science is actually carried out. You do your experiments and follow the evidence to wherever it leads, regardless of how weird it gets. If all physicists adopted MRT how would that change the way the science is carried out? Concealed Citizen
People think about things that exist as thoughts or mental images, memories or mental experiences, and then use them as examples of things not in mind. Stomach? I doubt anyone here has ever even experienced a "stomach" other than as various mental comforts or discomforts they mentally associated with a "stomach." Absurdity piled on absurdity piled on even more absurdity. You can't point at anything not in mind, because if it wasn't in mind you wouldn't be able to think of it to point at it or say words that refer to it. William J Murray
WJM:
What’s absurd here is that people are arguing that unless a hypothetical world exists that we have no capacity to access and cannot even imagine, it means the end of logic and science.
MRT posits a "hypothetical world" too, that you call the "module" that has "information" and "algorithms", and is "shared" between minds. That's the very definition of "objective" and "external" in any functional sense. In my egg yolk example, the information and algorithms the are responsible for the egg must exist in your shared "module" before I crack it open and an examine it. I don't see a functional, practical difference between that and the ERT view. Same thing. Different terms.
Shared “external physical world” experiences might be called a module that contains both the information to be processed and the processing algorithms. Those of us who inhabit that world have that module as part of our overall identity structure; it is an internal module we share with others, connecting us together. It might be thought of as a virtual world program we have put in our computers and play by LAN (local area network.)
What's the functional, practical difference between the "hypothetical world" that you seem to be mocking, and your shared "module"? And are you saying that adopting the MRT hypothesis provides superior "access" to the shared "module"? At any rate, science, and human reason in general, is about explanations of phenomena and making models that can make predictions. What advantage does MRT provide with respect to those endeavors? How is it useful? Concealed Citizen
WJM:
If anyone wants to make a case that something “exists” outside of mind, it’s really simple. Point at something that exists outside of mind.
The yolk of an egg before I crack it open and look at it. You said earlier, "Shared “external physical world” experiences might be called a module that contains both the information to be processed and the processing algorithms." Even in your MRT, there is something external to any given mind- a "module" that is in an objective common ground that has information and processes. Then what's the practical difference between MRT and ERT? At any rate, science, and human reason in general, is about explanations of phenomena and making models that can make predictions. What advantage does MRT provide with respect to those endeavors? How is it useful? Concealed Citizen
Jerry, history always has particularities and debates. However the epochal state documents were there at key points, capturing where thought had reached critical mass to shape state power. Archbishop of Canterbury drafting a document to settle a revolutionary uprising with an unpopular and ineffective king is a marker. That document in 39 and 40 lays out the line down which democracies would unfold over the next 800 years, after first being part of a big fight [the king went to the pope to try to break it then eventually it came back as future kings saw this was what was needed to secure consent), and seems to have influenced formal creation of a parliament. KF kairosfocus
make an argument for the existence of something without using mind or mental experiences.
All this is saying is that every human has a mind, some memories and uses them. Something that has been known since the first human. Maybe the most trivial conclusion ever made on this website or in any conversation between two humans. Question: has there ever been more pixels wasted on anything more trivial than this? Another question: what’s this have to do with natural law?
even your own brain is outside of your mind
But especially one’s stomach is outside of one’s mind. So a week’s worth of ignoring food and water should do wonders for this theory. How about 1 minute without air. Since they are all just mental constructs. jerry
William J Murray If anyone wants to make a case that something “exists” outside of mind, it’s really simple. Point at something that exists outside of mind. Or, tell me to imagine something outside of mind. Or, make an argument for the existence of something without using mind or mental experiences. Go ahead, I’ll wait patiently.
Everything is outside your mind ,even your own brain is outside of your mind . :)) Lieutenant Commander Data
William J Murray: If anyone wants to make a case that something “exists” outside of mind, it’s really simple. Point at something that exists outside of mind. Two. Or Three. I prefer two. Five is good as well. The base of the natural logarithms . . . . not so sure about that. JVL
I repeat: If anyone wants to make a case that something “exists” outside of mind, it’s really simple. Point at something that exists outside of mind. Or, tell me to imagine something outside of mind. Or, make an argument for the existence of something without using mind or mental experiences. Go ahead, I’ll wait patiently. William J Murray
LCD said:
No, you are the only one who cannot do it. The rest of the world can do it without even thinking because is an automatic ,instinctual process.
LCD says people can imagine something without thinking. Absurdity piled on absurdity.
Yes, we do. All the time.
You just made my point. What we call the external world disappears when that information is no longer being accessed when we sleep. This shows that we only experience that information in our mind. Turn the mind off, no experiences whatsoever, not even dreams. You believe that information is "coming from" an external world; it is irrelevant where the information is believed to be coming from. What is actually being experienced is information in your mind. You cannot experience information elsewhere; you cannot experience information that is not in your mind. Everything we actually experience is in mind, because the only thing we can experience is information in mind', regardless of where that information hypothetically comes from. William J Murray
William J Murray Now imagine that something exists outside of mind. You literally cannot do it.
No, you are the only one who cannot do it. The rest of the world can do it without even thinking because is an automatic ,instinctual process.
You cannot experience, in any way, shape or form, something existing outside of mind.
Yes, we do. All the time, all day long, excepting when we sleep and even then we experience outside world pattern ,but this time is imagined by mind itself , not processed from external impulses that hit the brain coming from sensory organs(happening in waking state ) Lieutenant Commander Data
Magna Carta in certain parts, is actually still a part of UK Law, of constitutional character, along with the later bill of rights
I'm not saying they aren't. But the reason they are included is because of other happenstances that were much more necessary for the modern world which then incorporated these documents after the fact. They were not the basis for the changes. If these happenstances hadn't happened, the world outside today would be completely different. Maybe still mainly agrarian. But by the time of Pennsylvania, an inevitable future was happening. The real experiment with freedom was going on there as poor farmers and tradesmen of various religions from non English countries were settling there. The Spanish colonies never contributed much to the modern world. There is no reason to think the English colonies would have been different if it weren't for the religious conflicts taking place in England during the 16th and 17th centuries. If James II had been less of an oaf and more accommodating to other power sources in England, there would eventually be an industrial revolution and no need to replace the Stuart dynasty or for the Glorious Revolution. It would have led to a similar future but not the same. The key to the modern world was freedom and it was not based on any document or tradition. Actually tradition even after the Magna Carta was against freedom. jerry
Go ahead, I’ll wait patiently.
Try not eating or drinking. After a couple day we will all wait patiently for your reply using something outside your mind.. jerry
Jerry, Magna Carta in certain parts, is actually still a part of UK Law, of constitutional character, along with the later bill of rights. These two documents were fruits of revolutions. The key principles I cited are absolutely pivotal acknowledgements admittedly given at sword point and then put under a fig leaf of retraction but they kept coming back until they were embedded in the common law frame. I gather every couple of years the US Bar Association has sent a delegation to Runnymede in homage. KF kairosfocus
What's absurd here is that people are arguing that unless a hypothetical world exists that we have no capacity to access and cannot even imagine, it means the end of logic and science. You can't make this stuff up. William J Murray
KF said (and LCD quoted:)
Where, if all experience is entirely mental, it is caught up in that circle, there can be no corroborating scientific evidence external to mind, esp if the self-aware centres doing the science at least as extensions of mind, are delusional. Science and its empirical findings collapse.
All experience is, inescapably, factually mental. The only meaningful question is "where does the information for certain experiences come from?" Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "corroborating scientific evidence external of mind," because all experience is mental. Evidence is experienced in mind. Empiricism means the experience of a thing. Theories about the thing are produced in mind. Experiments are conducting entirely in mental experience according to mental rules, and the implications are derived through logical (mental) analysis. To know of any corroborating scientific evidence is to mentally experience other scientists transferring information to you. The only thing science can possibly ever investigate, even in principle, is mental experience. Science, properly defined in broad terms, is the methodology of modeling and predicting the behavior of experience. It can actually be applied to any category of mental experience. However, in the particular category we usually call "the external physical world," science would be better labeled the method of modeling and successfully predicting the behavior of shared, repeatable, predictable experiences. Of course, such experiments and research can be successfully corroborated by other people, and theoretical models disproved via experimentation. William J Murray
People that argue against mental reality are the same as people that argue against free will. It's impossible to make either argument without invoking it. William J Murray
If anyone wants to make a case that something "exists" outside of mind, it's really simple. Point at something that exists outside of mind. Or, tell me to imagine something outside of mind. Or, make an argument for the existence of something without using mind or mental experiences. Go ahead, I'll wait patiently. William J Murray
KF, As far as I can tell, your entire argument and following objections against MRT flows from this first point you made:
Nope, the just above is a general problem of any worldview assertion that states or implies that our minds have general dysfunction. Multiplied, by, the testimony of our consciousness that we live in a common world which is antecedent to each of us, and that we interact with others who are as we are.
MRT doesn't state or imply that our minds have a "general dysfunction." A labeling error is not a "general dysfunction." MRT does not state that we do not "live in a common world antecedent to each of us," or that "we do not interact with others who are as we are."
Here, by implying what it tries to deny, knowledge of a major truth regarding the external world, precisely what it asserts is not feasible.
This is like saying that when I assert there is no such thing as a square circle, it implies the existence of a square circle. The phrase, "something exists outside of mind" is a nonsensical statement, categorically the same as saying "square circles exist." What does it mean to say something exists? Can something exist that cannot, even in principle, be experienced? In principle, a square circle cannot be experienced, even in the imagination. It is literally impossible to imagine that A does not =A; that 2+2 does not equal 4; that a square circle exists. Now imagine that something exists outside of mind. You literally cannot do it. Yes, you can imagine something exists outside of your brain or physical body; but you cannot imagine it outside of mind. You cannot experience, in any way, shape or form, something existing outside of mind. All of our existence, everything's existence, regardless of how we think about it, label it or characterize it, can only occur in mind. It is an absurd statement to say something "exists" outside of mind because no one ever has, or ever will, experience the existence of anything "outside of mind." If it was outside of mind you would not be experiencing it nor would you be capable of experiencing it because all experience occurs in mind. Is it logically coherent to say you are experiencing something other than mind? You might say our minds are interpreting extra-mental information; that's an absurd statement. Information is entirely abstract; it only exists in mind. You might counter that information can be instantiated onto matter that is external of mind; yet we cannot even find "matter," much less coherently say we are extracting information from extra-mental "matter." The only thing that can be properly said to exist is "information" that provides for a physical experience, all of which exists and occurs in mind. So, I say - rightfully, logically - that nothing exists outside of mind because it is nonsensical to assert that something does exist outside of mind. You can run around all day long saying square circles exist, or 2+2=5; that doesn't mean those statements make any sense. The inescapable nature of reality is mental. It is built entirely of information, which can only exist in mind, processed by mind into mental experiences. To argue against mental reality is to imply it and utilize it. To argue that something exists "outside of mind" is to be in mind, use the mind, employ information in mind, and argue from entirely mental experiences using entirely mental rules of thought. You might as well try to argue that you do not exist. William J Murray
Magna Carta is particularly telling.
While the Magna Carter was part of history it was hardly necessary and definitely not sufficient. The divine right of kings and their authority was near absolute at the beginning of the 16th century. I maintain that it was happenstances that led to the United States and freedom, the industrial revolution and the modern world. And yes Natural Law theory was most definitely a necessary condition. First, if Henry VIii had 3-4 sons by Catherine and 5-8 grandsons, the Protestant Reformation would had been a blip in history. As it was there were no inheritors to the throne that thrived and produced heirs. And no alliance between Henry and Charles V to conquer and restore the Holy Roman Empire. In fact they became enemies. So Protestant sects flourished especially in Holland and England and forced competition for dominance in England just as the monarchy was weakened by lack of heirs. This led to the rise of Parliament and then to the execution of Charles I. Then to Cromwell and the the short commonwealth. The Restoration led to Penn and Pennsylvania. The deposing of James II led to the establishment of religious freedom and eventually to individual freedom but mainly in the colonies. In the 1760’s there was an attempt to organize the colonies against England but none wanted it. 10-12 years later each colony has a specific grievance against England (all different) and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense United them. The Declaration of Independence and insurrection was the result. With absolute freedom in the United States, especially Pennsylvania, innovation and economic expansion exploded and the modern world began to appear. Mean time England had become rich from its colonies and military successes and already began uthe industrial revolution and led Europe into expanded economic innovation and prosperity. . Lot of just right happenstances. jerry
Kairosfocus 26: Where, if all experience is entirely mental, it is caught up in that circle, there can be no corroborating scientific evidence external to mind, esp if the self-aware centres doing the science at least as extensions of mind, are delusional. Science and its empirical findings collapse.
Yes.There is NO SCIENCE inside MRT, because there exist only one dimension: the mental dimension, no universal physical laws, no mass density of protons and neutrons, no life-damaging UV radiations, no real benefits of Ozone layer, all are only mental projections , a movie on a screen ...including electrons, slits and whatever "experiment". ;) Lieutenant Commander Data
KF, I'm going to keep these two subjects separate. You said:
This instead is a concrete case of an undeniable self-evident truth that points to a lot of the primary duties we have.
You have not made the case for the self-evidently true nature of conscience as manifest in the examples you have given. Nor have you answered a question I have asked repeatedly, which has to do with this. Just because most people would find X behavior "shocking to the conscience," or would agree that widespread engagement in that behavior would lead to undesirable results, does not even begin to make the case that any statement of conscience is "self-evidently true" or that conscience is a necessary and unavoidable aspect of our existence. A=A is necessary and unavoidable; you cannot even argue against it without employing it. Truth statements are necessary and unavoidable. 2+2=4 is necessary and unavoidable. You make the case that good and evil are unavoidable aspects of our existence. Let's say definitionally that "good vs evil" = the difference between what one ought do, and what one ought not do (since I've agreed arguendo to your "first duty" perspective.) This would mean that "good" and "evil" would be defined so far in our debate as properly identifying things and not deliberately misidentifying things, which carries with it obligation to truth telling in general. What we have agreed to so far does not logically entail the following: "harming others for personal pleasure is evil" or "one ought not harm others for personal pleasure." You replied by appealing to conscience and have just declared it a source of self-evidently true statements, and that the "shock to the conscience" reveals the self-evidently true nature of such a statement. That is not true, because not everyone unavoidably experiences that "shock." Sociopaths exist. Even the sociopath is unavoidably bound to making fundamentally true statements and is confined to mathematical realities. "I enjoy torturing people. I also enjoy being free to do so. Unless I avoid other people knowing about my activities, I will most likely have my freedom taken away. So, I will hide what I'm doing from other people." These can all be perfectly true statements and sound logic. So far, according to our agreed definitions, the sociopath is not doing anything evil. Even if he lies to a victim to get him or her to come home, the only thing that can be defined as necessarily evil (so far) is telling the lie. But, he or she can avoid telling a lie easily enough by simply not saying anything to his or her victim before incapacitating them and dragging them off to their lair. Again, unless you can tell me what the existentially unavoidable aspect of conscience is, you have failed to make the case that anything about it is self-evidently true or rises to the level of a "first duty." Even if something were to universally "shock the conscience," it would not make this case. Even if the whole world would fall into behavioral chaos unless people universally agreed that some basic conscience-based statements were self-evidently true, that would not make your case. Self-evidently true statements are not self-evident because people agree with them or because the ramifications of not behaving as if they were true would lead to chaos or because to deny them would "shock" you; they are self-evidently true because everything you say and do and think is rooted in them. This is why they are existential and inescapable and self-evidently true. You'll have to do better than appeal to emotional shock and socio-behavioral consequences to establish anything about conscience as being "self-evidently true," or existentially necessary and unavoidable. William J Murray
Jerry, of course, interesting clips are welcome. I note, a comment I ran across, on the five cities thesis:
In The Roots of American Order, first published in 1974, Russell Kirk provides a convincing answer: America is not only the land of the free and the home of the brave but a place of ordered [--> though always imperfect!] liberty [under law], which made its freedom and prosperity possible. Using the device of examining five cities—Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London, and Philadelphia—Kirk traces the roots of American order to long-standing traditions in human history. First came the Hebrews, who recognized “a purposeful moral existence under God.” For the prophets, the hill-town of Jerusalem was the eternal city for salvation. Next came the Greeks who strengthened the roots with their philosophical and political self-awareness. Athens was where Western philosophy was born, and from it came the Western views of science and the conviction that all areas of knowledge are within the ability of the mind of men. There followed the Romans, with their emphasis on law and social awareness. Rome was the seat of a great empire, and its political administration and stability echoed down the centuries. The roots of these cities were intertwined “with the Christian understanding of human duties and human hopes” and were joined by medieval custom, learning, and valor. The roots of order were then enriched by two great political experiments in law and liberty centered in London and Philadelphia. But they did not come to pass overnight. Indeed, the British contribution was made possible by six-and-a-half centuries of political experimentation from the Magna Carta in 1215 through the Glorious Revolution of 1689. The first part of the British experiment took place during what are so often called, erroneously, the Dark Ages. In The Roots of American Order, Kirk lists the contributions of the Middle Ages: our system of common law, the essentials of representative government, our language, our social patterns, and the foundation of our modern economy. Too often forgotten today, they illustrate Kirk’s view that political order reflects custom, mores, and belief [--> i.e. that culture leads politics . . . hence, one utility of the "7M" culture mapping model]. According to the French political philosopher Montesquieu, the only “grand change in the art of government” since Aristotle was representative government. And its first sign was the Great Charter, the Magna Carta, which the English barons extracted from a reluctant King John. Its lasting principle is simple and yet profound: The law is supreme and must be obeyed by all, even the King.
INSERT: Let us clip and annotate a key part of The Great Charter of the Liberties (1215) as written by Archbishop of Canterbury Samuel Langton and imposed at sword-point at Runnymede, i.e. points 39 and 40 in Blackstone's numbering: "+ (39) No free man [–> recognition of freedom, the further question is, who shall be free] shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions [–> recognition of rights including property], or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him [–> policing power & the sword of state subordinated to justice. NB Rom 13: 3 - 5 3 For [civil] authorities are not a source of fear for [people of] good behavior, but for [those who do] evil. Do you want to be unafraid of authority? Do what is good and you will receive approval and commendation. 4 For he is God’s servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, [you should] be afraid; for he does not carry the [executioner’s] sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an avenger who brings punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject [to civil authorities], not only to escape the punishment [that comes with wrongdoing], but also as a matter of principle [knowing what is right before God]. (Cf. here, on nationhood and government under God.)], or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals [ –> peers, i.e. trial by jury of peers] or by the law of the land [–> rule of law, not decree of tyrant or oligarch]. + (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. [–> integrity, lawfulness and legitimacy of government rooted in the priority of right and justice]"
The Middle Ages was followed in swift and often chaotic succession by the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Counter-Reformation. Man proposed a new “humanism,” Kirk writes, driven by ego and enlightenment. [--> the echoes of Francis Schaeffer coming from a Catholic author, should be noted.] Protestant reformers returned to the stern teaching of St. Augustine: man loving himself above everything can only be saved by the grace of God. Out of the Protestant Ethic, Kirk says, came self-reliance, self-examination, endeavor in the secular world, and democracy. England, thanks to Richard Hooker and others, found a middle path between warring factions on the continent and passed it on to America: It consisted of law, liberty, and tolerance. But the passage was not an easy or swift one, in part because of the conflicting ideas of philosophers like Hobbes and Locke . . . . [Building on such influences] The [US] Declaration [of Independence, July 4, 1776] was a revolutionary document, Kirk says, a bill of particulars for going to war against George III, but it was not an open-ended justification of revolution under any and all circumstances. It was, in fact, primarily a political document, meant to set forth grievances against the King and the justifications for the political separation of the colonies. Among its 27 specific complaints, not one touched on social and economic conditions. The Declaration was a conservative document in that it spoke of changing the “government” but not the “state.” As Kirk points out, “government” implied the ministers and other temporary possessors of political power while “society” meant the establishment civil social order. Still, the Declaration was a radical document in the sense that it reasserted a political autonomy rooted in the North American continent ever since the landings at Jamestown and Plymouth. Eleven years later and now citizens of a new nation, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met to revise the Articles of Confederation. They wound up producing a whole new constitution. It was a practical document, says Kirk, attempting to resolve the conflicting demands of freedom and order. Its composition demanded balance, firmness, and yet a willingness to yield because the delegates had to (a) uphold order but not reduce true liberty, (b) produce a reasonably strong national government while not reducing the states to mere provinces; and (c) provide for an effective chief executive who could not, however, become a king or dictator . . .
Much food for thought, there. Notice, how core premises of law are articulated into systems and then play out on the stage of history. Magna Carta is particularly telling. KF kairosfocus
F/N (attn Sev): What Jefferson et al were pointing to (and implying patent absurdity on the attempted denial), in a key source:
[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. ]
The assertion of equality of nature for creatures of a common sort is not a lie. That such creatures are envisioned as having Creator-endowed rights is simply a dual to the inescapability of first duties and their mutuality. Aristotle et al pointed to the duties part, it only took a turnabout of perspective to see that if X owes Y inherently a duty, Y has some sort of property-interest to claim a duty owed. Indeed, in Rom 13, Paul speaks in terms of debts and the enduring mutual debt of neighbour love. He in fact does a very Pauline pivot to make a striking point in a rhetorically, seemingly incidental paragraph to do so. The name for that property-interest, of course, is a right. Just as I have a property-interest in my vehicle or my computer or my house spot or my garden plot or farm, I have a property-interest in my life, my freedom [notice, how carefully the founders identified UNALIENABLE . . . can't be sold as innate to our nature], my sense of purpose/vision/calling and hopes to fulfill such, etc. This of course is a subtle dagger pointing at the heart of slavery. A compromise on hardness of heart and prudence had to be struck, but the principle of correction was on the table. (BTW, George III, predictably, pounced on the slavery issue.) So, no, there is no lie there. And, objection on accusation of lying directly points to duty to truth. KF kairosfocus
WJM, I now pause to look at some of your remarks: 798: >>it may very well be correct. However, I gave you your chance to support your view logically by your own terms and definitions; you failed to do so as soon as you resorted to appealing to intuition, emotion and consequences.>> 1: Saying 'ent make it so, you turned a remark on how a specific case can shock the conscience into action, into an appeal to emotions. That this is in response to reflections on a particularly heinous kidnap, sexual assault and murder of a real child, says something, something quite sad. 2: This instead is a concrete case of an undeniable self-evident truth that points to a lot of the primary duties we have. 3: And, dismissing the categorical imperative as an appeal to consequences is further revealing. The point of the universalisability form is that evils rely for whatever advantage they confer on the premise that overwhelmingly we do not live by the implicit maxim in the evil. Lying is the classic case, were it to even approach being a norm, societal communication would disintegrate and with it society reducing us beyond savagery. By contrast, general truthfulness is a viable universal behaviour. 4: Child kidnapping, sexual torture and murder at will for one's pleasure would be just as bad. So, we see here a means of detecting evils from their pattern of parasiting on the general behaviour. Which does have existential import, e.g. criminal law recognises and deters particularly destructive evils in defence of the civil peace and thus human thriving. >>Reiterating your argument for your worldview, and reiterating what your worldview considers (even given what little you know about MRT) to be “errors” under MRT, isn’t even a challenge.>> 6: In due course, we will address what you have put up, not with pleasure but as you are using it as a defensive moat and wall. Here, I just note that any theory that implies that a major part of our mind-function is delusional, is self-referential and self-defeating by way of implying that our mindedness is without credibility. That starts with Plato's Cave and extends from there across 2400 years of cases. >> You’re just saying the same thing over and over again.>> 7: I can only point out a key fault as a key fault, in the end, for record. >> I’ve already addressed your concerns and demonstrated them to be irrational worries based on erroneously evaluating MRT under the rules of your own worldview, not out of actual logic.>> 8: Nope, the just above is a general problem of any worldview assertion that states or implies that our minds have general dysfunction. Multiplied, by, the testimony of our consciousness that we live in a common world which is antecedent to each of us, and that we interact with others who are as we are. >>But, we have seen that where your logic fails, you are perfectly willing to move to appeals to intuition, emotion, and consequences – or, as evidenced above, stories that are convenient to your worldview.>> 9: Strawman, repeated, sadly. >>When you’re serious about challenging MRT, let me know by asking a pertinent question that might lead – logically – to some actual logical inconsistency or fundamental issue. You know, instead of just assuming you already know everything about it.>> 10: Already on the table. 800: >>You then immediately comment in reference to make a point extending from that quote [from F H Bradley on the Kantian ugly gulch]: [KF] That is, we cannot not claim to know regarding the external world that presents itself to us. [WJM] You’re conflating the full category of metaphysical claims indicating knowledge about reality with the sub-category of metaphysical claims that include an extra-mental world.>> 11: No, I have pointed out a classical case of the impact of any world frame that imposes an ugly gulch between what appears to consciousness and whatever actually is. Here, that we cannot but assert or imply truth claims about that world, with associated appeals to why we think them credible, reliable etc. 12: This actually illustrates how we cannot but appeal to duties to truth, of course. One of the first duties. 13: Beyond, we see from a major modern case, how the imposition of skeptical barriers to taking our recognition of the external physical, common world we appear to inhabit as largely credible, leads to self-referential self-defeat. Here, by implying what it tries to deny, knowledge of a major truth regarding the external world, precisely what it asserts is not feasible. 14: This directly shows that this sort of problem is real and fatal for a view. 15: Now, extend such to any view that in effect implies that the physical world is not there as such, it is an astonishingly in-common delusion, implying in effect a grand global simulation with our particular consciousness and contents regarding such a world rolled up in it. Such subsidiary centres of self-awareness would be immediately untrustworthy by way of grand delusion.. (The cases of Crick's Astonishing hypothesis, or Freud's appeal to in effect strictness of potty training etc, or to Marx's class conditioning, or to Skinner's behavioural conditioning or to the notion of a public hypnotised by the marketers and propagandists etc all fall into this, to one extent or another. This sort of self-referential incoherence is a major feature of modernity and of its extension, ultra-modernity, aka post modernity.) >>You go on: [KF] So, any system that denies such knowledge is fatally self-referential.>> 16: For cause, as seen in outline. >>Nope, because under MRT, there is a distinction between self and mind. Please note that I never say “your mind” or “my mind.” Everything exists in mind.>> 17: In short, you confirm my point that our localised sense of individual conscious mindedness is a manifestation of a grand in common mind, so that these centres with a sense of a common external world are grandly delusional. So, utterly untrustworthy. 18: So, how can delusional local centre W claim to have any better insight into M than delusional centre K? On what principles of credibility that are independent of the spreading miasma of delusion? >> There is no world external of mind.>> 19: This of course further carries forward the point. >> There are countless “selfs” in mind. Thus, nothing about MRT is “fatally self-referential.”>> 20: How the self-referential incoherence arises is thus seen. First, at the level of the local self-aware centres then by extension to the central mind having such in it. If buggy in the local, buggy. If buggy, untrustworthy. >>You might have understood this if you asked a question instead of assuming you know all you need to know about MRT>> 21: I think the above shows that it is fair comment that you have inadvertently confirmed that I have understood a major feature and have shown a significant difficulty. >> – or if you had been paying attention to what I actually say.>> 22: I have been hesitant to get into a direct exchange. Now, let's roll the tape, as a first note and I deliberately choose a thread rather than a duelling string of OP's: >>Outlining A Functional Mental Reality Theory Posted on October 10, 2020 Author William J MurrayComments(34)>> 23: I take this to be a primary, in outline, source. >>By accepting the fundamental, unequivocal logical fact that our experiential existence is necessarily, entirely mental in nature, and accepting the unambiguous scientific evidence that supports this view,>> 24: The point of departure, taken as a summary thesis, [a] that reality is monist, here mind (presumably, with local centres of self-awareness as described and commented on); [b] that this defines "experience" as "entirely mental"; [c] scientific findings support this view. 25; Monist views all face the issue of reduction of diversity to the one actual reality without entailing a thesis of grand delusion for our sense of individuality. Materialistic monism as well as mind-monism. Brahman is Atman, etc too. 26: Where, if all experience is entirely mental, it is caught up in that circle, there can be no corroborating scientific evidence external to mind, esp if the self-aware centres doing the science at least as extensions of mind, are delusional. Science and its empirical findings collapse. >>we can move on to the task of developing a functioning and useful theory of mental reality.>> 27: Now, deeply problematical. >> I will attempt to roughly outline such a theory here, with the caveat that trying to express such a theory in language that is thoroughly steeped in external, physical world ideology is at best difficult. >> 28: If language makes it hard to say something, that may be a clue. >>Another caveat would be that, even though the categorical nature of the theory probably cannot be disproved (mental reality would account for all possible experiences,) some models might prove more useful and thus be better models.>> 29: Self-referential incoherence, tied to the principle of distinct identity [even as just a thought or symbol or chain thereof] is a reasonable criterion of falsity. >>IMO, the phrase “we live in a mental reality,” once properly understood, is realized as a self-evident truth. Self-evident truths cannot be “disproved.”>> 30: Self-evidence claim. 31: The self evident is understood by those of reasonable mature experience as true once stated due to the meaning of what is stated, as necessarily true of order 2 + 3 = 5 [e.g. spread your five fingers into a two and a three then cluster together again], and as such on pain of immediate, patent absurdity on attempted denial. 32: MRT, regrettably, has none of these characteristics. It is not a general consensus of mature persons, it is not suppressed by clinging to absurdities such as we see for those who despise the concept of objective truth and knowledge, etc. It is a member of a particular family of worldviews, subject to bristling with difficulties and so to facing comparative difficulties. 33: What is undeniably self evident is that we are self aware, and that such self-awareness is primary and the context in which we become aware of ideas and experiences, including of our in common world. So, casting hyperskeptical doubts on the ability to think truly, logically and with responsible warrant is self-referential and self-defeating. >>For any particular theory to even get off the ground, there must be a structure that can organize it into something comprehensible, testable (for usefulness), and which corresponds to current experience while making predictions and retrodictions.>> 34: Yes. >>There are at least two indisputable structures to mind and how it generates experience; logic and mathematics. These may be two different ways of expressing the same universal principle of mind.>> 35: Mathematics and linked logic are a part of our self-aware mindedness, along with perceptions, memories, surprises, incidents, etc. >> In this model, this “mathlogical” principle is that which takes a set of information and processes it into experience. I’m going to simplify the term and say it this way: experience is the algorithmic expression of a data set.>> 36: Algorithms are not self-justifying. GIGO obtains, and this is a doorway for grand delusion, obviously so on reductionism to a physical computational substrate [rocks have no dreams], but also the case for a mind-computer. For, algorithms are mechanisms of rule based stepwise succession, they are not rational inference. Process logic may obtain, but as need to debug warns, process is no more reliable than its source: garbage in, garbage out. >>The data set that the algorithm processes can be roughly stated as that set of data which represents the mental structures we identify as individuals.>> 37: GIGO again. Data and structure are not truth or even reliability. >> No two individuals are comprised by the exact same identity set or they would be the same person, which follows the logical principle of identity.>> 38: i of course note the appeal to distinct identity, i/l/o the OP etc. LNC and LEM are close corollaries, hence the power of issues of self-referential incoherence. 39: So far, the point is, we hold distinctive identities as our data sets and presumably algorithms differ. >>And so, no two people experience the same exact thing even though the algorithm follows the same rules for expression.>> 40: I assume this obtains for an algorithm in common, there is no reason why all algorithms in the local will be uniform. Algorithms, after all, are expressions of a special kind of data, that used to give the stepwise procedures to execute on other data. Where, some are self-modifying and presumably all are subject to chance. >> Two individuals can be connect to the some or even much of the same data, but not all of it.>> 42: This speaks to the in-common world. Of course, where it is a delusion, the issues of GIGO obtain. >>Note: there are infinite varieties of data sets because there is infinite information available that can be arranged an infinite number of ways.>> 43: Take this as, in principle unlimited. >>Innumerable individuals can have included in their individual data sets large blocks of arranged information which they are, essentially, sharing.>> 44: in common. 45: But, why not subject to chance, noise etc leading to potentially radical diversity. >>The algorithmic expression of such data blocks, even with innumerable individual variances of data not contained in the shared data block, could result in what we observe as a shared, external, physical world.>> 46: The grand, more or less in common delusion. >> In fact, it may be that the “external physical world” is a data block that acts as filtering information that other individual information is processed through – at least to a large degree.>> 47: Is the grand delusion in charge? >>And so, we experience what seems to be a consistent, shared “world” that is governed by logic and math.>> 48: Yup, moves from may to credibly is. GIGO rules, therefore. >>However, the model is fundamentally incomplete unless we bring in another fundamental quality of experience: free will.>> 49: Algorithms do not have rational, responsible freedom, a fundamental issue faced by AI. >>In this model, free will is precisely defined as the capacity to unilaterally, free of both the data and the algorithmic process, direct one’s attention.>> 50: The ghost in the machine, in effect an emergent property. Rabbit out of a non existent hat. >> It is absolutely free and unfettered, and as such it is also ineffable. Free will represents a single variable in the algorithm. Although this variable cannot change the principles by which the algorithm processes the data into experience, the variable establishes what information is included in the data set the algorithm is procedurally processing into experience.>> 51: At one level, this boils down to, where you look and where you listen, but that is about arbitrary truncation of data, a further source of GIGO. >>Usually, people use their free will capacity in no other way than to provide an experience-sustaining feedback loop. We focus our attention on the current expression of the data set and largely limit our attention to that which is logically implied by what the algorithm is already producing. >> 52: Gigo carried forward. >>We’re usually trapped in our own feedback loop because we identify with the algorithmic expression we experience as the very definition of what is real.>> 53: Delusion of the masses admitted into play, there are no firewalls to block self-referentiality. >> Oddly, as a result of confusing cause and effect, we erroneously think that our experience is caused by what we experience, when that can’t possibly be the case. It’s logically absurd.>> 54: Self-referentiality and delusion are set loose, so the theory self-destructs. >>In this model, we actually have the free will capacity to put our attention on any information, even if it is “outside” of our current identity data set and outside of what we’re experiencing as “shared physical reality.” We can set this variable of the algorithm to refer back to any information we want out of infinite information available. We call this capacity our “imagination.”>> 55: GIGO is still on the loose. >>Boom! Mental reality without a trace of solipsism.>> 56: The solipsism would be at the level of core mind not local centres. 57: More directly, we do not need solipsism of a local self-aware centre to have the GIGO issue on the loose. 58: The outline inadvertently substantiates the grounds for concerns given. KF PS: I will clip a chunk of a longstanding discussion on the test case: {{On balance, it is rational to believe that God exists, but obviously there are many deep, even painful questions to which we have no answers. And, those who choose to believe in God will have a radically different evaluation of evil than those who reject him. We may now carry this forward, to briefly address the vexed problem of the fairly common attempt to reduce morality to subjective or otherwise relative perceptions imposed by persuasion or force. For this, it is perhaps best to start with a very concrete case, one which is unfortunately not just theoretical: [MY1:] ASSERTION . . . MORAL YARDSTICK 1: it is self-evidently wrong, bad and evil to kidnap, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child. Likewise, by corollary: if we come across such a case in progress, it is our duty to try to intervene to save the child from such a monster. Almost all people will agree that such a case is horrible, and to be deplored. So also, they will agree that a duty of rescue obtains, or at least succor for someone left half dead. Thus, we see the significance of the Good Samaritan as a paradigm of neighbourliness across racial, religious, political and other dividing-lines or even outright enmity: Luke 10:25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” 29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” [ESV] And, normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of such core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul: Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, "harm"] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV] Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness: . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles; for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to (a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law. Thus, (c) we can now see that a core of law is built into moral government of our responsible, rational freedom (through our known, inescapable duties to truth, right reason, prudence [including, warrant], sound conscience, neighbourliness [thus, the golden rule], fairness & justice, etc). On these, (d) we may frame just civil law as comporting with that built-in law of our morally governed nature, towards upholding and defending the civil peace of justice through sound government. For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial. Expanding slightly: our rational, responsible intelligent behaviour is inescapably under the moral government of known duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so to warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbourliness [thus, the Golden Rule], to fairness and justice, etc. Thus, we find morally rooted law built into our morally governed nature, even for our intellectual life. Thus, too, the civil law extends what is already built in, to our social circumstances, turning on issues of prudence, justice and mutual duties; if it is to be legitimate. Notice, this is itself a theory on what law is or at least should be. And yes, all of this is fraught with implications for the roots of reality.) 2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit. Where, this is no mere emotive appeal to feared consequences, it is an argument by exposing self-referential incoherence.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. (That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. That is, we here expose further self-referential incoherence.) 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT -- so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first manifestly be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm one's neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity.(This helps us frame just law.) 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle's terms as cited by Hooker: "because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like .") Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. (NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.) 12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia. F/N2: Likewise, as Ben Mines summarises from Leibniz, maximal goodness, wisdom and power are arguably mutually, inextricably entangled once we understand/accept that the good implies an evident proper end or purpose. That is, we here see how key attributes of God are deeply bound up in one another, each points to the others and the others point to each particular one (so, each attribute, set in context, is in this sense a "microcosm" of the whole) . . . but back to Mines: Leibniz has given an argument to show that omniscience and moral perfection [–> also, omnipotence] are mutually inclusive: all freely willed action strives towards some goal; all goals are the pursuit of some good entertained by the agent; [ –> real or imagined?] the scope and quality of entertainable goods is dependent on knowledge; the maximisation of knowledge perfects an agent’s judgment of the good. An evil being therefore lacks perfect knowledge; and lacking perfect knowledge, is not omniscient; and lacking omniscience, cannot be omnipotent since there will be some actions it lacks the knowledge to perform. The proposition, It is possible that a maximally great but evil being exists is therefore broadly incoherent. A being cannot be both evil and maximally great. F/N3: This principle of built-in moral government under known law also applies directly to gospel ethics, discipleship and evangelism. For, example, it means that "sin" is not merely an oppressive invention of priestcraft designed to bring us under theocratic tyranny -- which, is the exact implication of many objections to gospel ethics today. Instead, sin is in the first instance willful moral error, defiance therefore of the inherently good and utterly wise Creator who made us, gave us responsible freedom, commanded us to live by love and truth, and gave us sound conscience as a witness</b.. Therefore, too, we have real guilt against the law of our nature, the law of our creator, not just mere painful emotions to deal with. It is in this context that the gospel is good news: in his love, our creator has made a way for us to be forgiven, rescued and transformed.}} kairosfocus
CC said:
Actually, the equations of QM do not imply that.
I was asked to describe the logical connection between quantum physics and MRT. By "demonstrated" I was not referring to equations or interpretations, but what has occurred in experimentation. The various interpretations of QM are the attempts by theoreticians to make sense of the results of experiments such as the classic dual-slit experiment, the delayed-choice experiment and the quantum eraser experiments. There were "loopholes" that attempted to preserve the "local reality" of what was being observed; IOW, the idea that the state characteristics of what was being observed were in some way independent of observation. Those loopholes were all closed. There is no such thing as a physical or energetic "reality" to what is being observed. This has led several major quantum physicists to view reality differently, such as Max Planck, considered by many to be the father of quantum physics:
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Pascual Jordan, theoretical physicist and mathematician, said:
Observation not only disturbs what has to be measured, they produce it. We compel the electron to assume a definite position. We ourselves produce the results of the measurement.
Neils Bohr, Nobel-Prize winner and one of the founders of QM theory:
“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.”
Werner Heisenberg, another key pioneer of QM theory
: "The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.
Physicist Paul Davies, director of BEYOND: The Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University:
"Historically, matter has been at the bottom of the explanatory chain, and information has been a sort of secondary derivative of it," Davies said. Now, he added, "there's increasing interest among at least a small group of physicists to turn this upside down and say, maybe at rock bottom, the universe is about information and information processing, and it's matter that emerges as a secondary concept."
Of course, most physicists continue to attempt to interpret the results of QM experimentation in a way that salvages their basic framework of material or physical reality. MRT, however, IMO, is inevitable simply because of the logical, existential and inescapable necessity of it.
How do you explain the nonsense that results when physicists try to join QM and General Relativity?
The "nonsense," or the disagreements about space, time and particular events, occurs because both theories have what they are actually examining wrong. Physicists think they are studying an actual, external, physical universe and not entirely mental phenomena. Much like the two-slit experiment, which was an attempt to settle the debate on whether or not a photon was a particle or a wave, the competing micro and macro theories insist it must one or the other - at least the irreconcilable parts. But that isn't true under MRT because phenomena is not essentially bound to physical laws, but rather to rules of mind, such as mathematics and algorithmic processing. Time and space are mathematical functions that can serve any number of theoretical explanations of experienced phenomena. What unifies these theories is not particular equations, but math itself. Let me explain it this way. Physicist John Wheel coined the phrase "it from bit" to characterize the nature of reality; meaning, the "its" we experience as physical things are manufactured from "bits," or information. Newtonian classical physics and the General Theory of Relativity are models describing the "its" side; QM theory is the modeling of the "bit" side. Here's an analogy: it's like macro-level physics theories are an attempt to model the physics being portrayed in a movie that is generated entirely by a computer, while micro-level physics (QM) is an attempt to understand the processing rules generating the imagery. These are two entirely different things that only have one thing in common: they can both be described mathematically. Any number of sets of "physical laws" can be generated algorithmically from information; it just depends on the information set being used and the particular values set in the algorithms used to produce the features of the movie. The only "conflicts" that arise are when you insist the two different things must be, at the root level, the same thing (other than as, fundamentally, mathematical operations.) William J Murray
Seversky It’s a tad ironic is that...
It's a barrel of irony when an atheist start to give lessons about morality. Sandy
Seversky: What is actually self-evident is that human beings are not all created equal. Jefferson was likely talking about the right of the colonists to become an independent state contra Britain. Not individual rights. https://news.stanford.edu/2020/07/01/meaning-declaration-independence-changed-time/ Concealed Citizen
Equality existed as a concept for a nation for a brief time in Ancient Athens. It lasted less than three centuries in a small part of the world. The next example of equality as a concept for a nation happened in the United States over 2,000 years later. This concept did not exist anywhere else in the world to any extent or for any amount of time ever. So the United States did not get it exactly right at first. They had no model only the rhetoric of people such as Aristotle, Cicero, Sidney and Locke and a few others. In the course on Freedom the author said the United States was the first nation in the history of mankind established on a basis of principles, not of ethnicity, geography, accident of history—but principles. The foundation of those principles is the idea of natural law. The new nation justified its very independence by an appeal to the laws of nature and of nature’s God. But yet the US is attacked because it was not perfect then nor is it perfect today. No one else has ever got it even remotely right either. There will always be resentment and people who will argue the lack of perfection as a reason for dissolution. They offer no model to emulate, only chaos. jerry
seversky:
What is actually self-evident is that human beings are not all created equal.
That all depends on what you mean by "equal". Everyone is born equal in the eyes of the Creator. Equal in stature
Moreover, the Old Testament testifies to the fact that their Creator ignored their “unalienable Rights” whenever it suited His purpose.
Nice cowardly strawman. It should make you wonder what those humans did that was so messed up. So there isn't any lie in the DoI. Just seversky's incompetence. ET
It's a tad ironic is that those who argue for the importance of honesty in public discourse seem not to notice that the second paragraph of the Declaration begins with an outright lie.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
What is actually self-evident is that human beings are not all created equal. They vary widely in height, strength, talents, intelligence and so on. Moreover, the Old Testament testifies to the fact that their Creator ignored their "unalienable Rights" whenever it suited His purpose. Now, the men who drafted the Declaration were not stupid or ignorant, they were amongst the best-educated, most intelligent, wisest men of their time. They knew their Bible and they knew people. My guess is they knew full well that they could not craft a ringing declaration of rights and freedoms by telling the messy truth about human beings so they chose the aspirational. They chose to tell a lie. Were they immoral to do so? Does it undermine the ideals that the Declaration held up? Seversky
KF, I just purchased another of the Great Courses titled the History of Freedom. One of its later lectures is on the Natural Law and the Declaration of Independence. The description for this lecture is
Born in democratic Athens, refined by Cicero, affirmed by St. Paul, and incorporated into first Roman and then the English common law, natural law would prove crucial to the American founding.
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-freedom The term "natural law" appears about a hundred times in this course. If I find anything especially interesting, I will post it. jerry
William J Murray Quantum physics has demonstrated...
Looks like Quantum physics doesn't {“collapse” into apparent specific energetic or physical states} in contrast with what all MRT components do .You have to modify your theory to exclude Quantum physics as the only one thing that doesn't collapse into apparent states, on the contrary , was very real and provided your 'evidences' for MRT. MRT is dead before birth. Lieutenant Commander Data
WJM:
Quantum physics has demonstrated that what we as conscious observers are interacting with is not fundamentally matter or energy, or even anything physical, but rather fields of information that are “collapsed” into apparent specific energetic or physical states or characteristics at the time of observation or measurement.
Actually, the equations of QM do not imply that. The Copenhagen interpretation does, but that's not QM, per se. Other interpretations exist. Many Worlds, Super-Determinism, among others. There may good reasons to accept one over the other interpretations, but those are philosophical interpretations that require additions assumptions that are not actually a part of the QM equations.
MRT is actually a comprehensive Theory of Everything.
Pretty bold statement. How do you explain the nonsense that results when physicists try to join QM and General Relativity? The generally accepted answer is that one and/or the other theories is wrong in some fundamental way. How does MRT solve the problem? Concealed Citizen
MRT is actually a comprehensive Theory of Everything. William J Murray
LCD @812 asks:
Could you share with us what is the logic relation between your theory and quantum physics?
I don't know how the logical relation could be more direct or obvious. Quantum physics has demonstrated that what we as conscious observers are interacting with is not fundamentally matter or energy, or even anything physical, but rather fields of information that are "collapsed" into apparent specific energetic or physical states or characteristics at the time of observation or measurement. MRT predicts there is no such thing as "matter" or even "energy," that reality is comprised of consciousness interacting with information and processing that information into patterns which we label as physical, or matter and energy. MRT also predicts that even "the past" is ultimately nothing more than patterns of information entirely dependent on and related to observation in the "now." In other words, observation in the "now" can affect actualities in what we call the past. This has been demonstrated via quantum experimentation. MRT predicts that two different observers can experience the particular state of phenomena, such as the polarity of a photon, in contradiction to each other. This has also been demonstrated by quantum physics experimentation. There is no good "external (of mind) world" theory that accounts for these observations. It is all easily accounted for, and easily predicted, by MRT. Here's another prediction by MRT: other universes, or what you might call other dimensions or alternate realities not only exist; they can be experienced. MRT also explains and predicts a lot of so-called "paranormal" phenomena, such as remote viewing, mediumship, telepathy, what we call the "afterlife," NDEs, OOBEs, etc. William J Murray
F/N: This summary on Phil, by Yandell, is also worth the clipping:
Philosophy’s task is the construction and assessment of worldviews. A worldview contains an account of the basic kinds of things there are and how they are related. These are the concern of metaphysics. It also contains an account of what knowledge is, what reasonable belief is, and how one identifies knowledge and reasonable belief. These are the concern of epistemology. It also gives an account of value, especially moral value. This is the concern of ethics. 1 There is no need for philosophy to construct such accounts from scratch. The common sense and cultural beliefs one encounters from one’s youth contain theses and themes that, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly, make commitments regarding what there is, what is known, and what is good. 2 Philosophers of course are free to offer their own accounts of these matters. It is an essential feature of philosophy that views offered on philosophical issues are also assessed. There is no such thing as philosophy without argument. Assertion without assessment is not philosophy.
Hence, comparative difficulties. KF kairosfocus
F/N: In discussing experience of God, Yandell speaks to the issue of veridicality of experience and the principle of credulity as opposed to pathological suspicion of error and hyperskepticism. Notice, inferences to best explanation i/l/o comparative difficulties:
One could argue: people seem to have experience of God; the best explanation of this fact is that God causes those experiences; hence there is reason to think that God exists. Similarly, one could argue: there seems to be a computer in front of me; the best explanation of things so appearing is that there is a computer in front of me; so there is reason to think a computer is there. But I seem simply to see the computer; my belief that it is there is a matter of at least seeming to see it and having no reason to think that things are not as they seem. I neither see something else from which I infer to my computer nor offer claims about best explanations. [--> presumably, not explicitly, save on request] Similarly, many have claimed to experience God, not to have some experience of something from which they can then properly infer that God exists. We will consider religious experience, viewed as evidence for God’s existence by virtue of its being a matter of “seeing God” rather than simply as a matter of its being the source of a premise in a proof of God’s existence.
Further food for thought, to be revisited later DV. KF kairosfocus
F/N: I find some interesting remarks in introductory notes to Yandell's Routledge series Intro to Phil of Religion:
There are academic circles in which talk of truth, let alone religious perspectives being true, is about as popular as a teetotal sermon at a local pub. For this to be the line to take, it must be true (in the sense of “true” that was supposedly dismissed) that talk of truth is somehow so problematic as to require its abandonment. This line thus appears to be incoherent; it appears so because it is. 2 The devotees of a religious tradition typically take what their sacred texts say to be true. Nor is it beyond their ability to think what this “being true” might amount to. Monotheists will take God exists to be true – they will suppose that an omnicompetent being exists on whom the world depends. Some religious nonmonotheists will think this claim false, and will think that such claims as Persons are indestructible or Persons are nothing more than momentary states are true. As Aristotle once said, a proposition is true if things are as it says they are, and not otherwise. Aristotle, and most devotees of most traditions, have no difficulty in understanding what this means. It is possible to educate oneself out of all possibility of learning anything. Aristotle and ordinary religious people have not suffered this injury.
This response to the fashionable assumptions and concepts of a radically secularist, too often hyperskeptical day, need to be pondered as food for thought. DV, later. KF kairosfocus
Jerry, Cicero, very consciously, was a Stoic. A Roman one, of course. Not, merely, indebted to them. His conservatism was to defend the then failing Roman Republican small-c constitution. He would eventually lose his head over it. He saw Caesar as a dangerous threatened tyrant and actually approved his assassination as a desperate last measure to preserve the Republic. Along the way he was a brilliant Rhetor [roughly, lawyer-politician]and Juris Consult, essayist and statesman. His writings have been influential down to our times. My thoughts along the lines in the OP were triggered by his remarks on law and thus government. I believe Paul of Tarsus [also in effect a Rhetor, but specifically Jewish] clearly knew the line of thought involved and recognised its relevance in reflecting a built-in, conscience attested intelligible law that morally governs our life of responsible reason and sense of guilty moral struggle; I add, conscience-shock is a defibrillation of a benumbed conscience in an era of massive warping of conscience . . . shocking the conscience[s] of the community is still a term of art in Anglophone jurisprudence. This is most explicit in Chs 2 and 13 of his Epistle to the Romans, reflecting Paul's ability to find subtle points of cultural contact. Later, men like Augustine and Aquinas would draw out elaborations in a line of influence that extends to Blackstone. KF PS: I annotate Cicero:
, On the Republic, Bk 3: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with [--> our morally governed] nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it [--> as universally binding core of law], and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people [--> as binding, universal, coeval with our humanity], and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. [--> sound conscience- guided reason will point out the core] And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 55 - 54 BC
kairosfocus
On topic,masterly. Jordan Peterson on Rules for Life, Psychedelics, The Bible, and Much More Lieutenant Commander Data
I am posting the transcription of the lecture on Cicero on another OP because it is extremely long. Anyone wanting to read it can do so there. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/michael-ruse-update-morality-is-just-an-aid-to-survival-and-reproduction/#comment-725521 It is on a very appropriate OP titled "Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction." Something that fits in here on Natural Law. I have to say after listening to this lecture and transcribing it, Cicero was quite an amazing thinker and I can understand why Kf has such respect for him. He is one of the great thinkers of all time. But he owes an immense debt to the Stoics. jerry
William J Murray However, since my arguments and counter-arguments are about logic and evidence (to the degree “evidence” can be presented in a forum like this,) whether or not I’m “telling the truth” about my personal experience is irrelevant.
Could you share with us what is the logic relation between your theory and quantum physics? Lieutenant Commander Data
Jerry asks:
Is this not truthful? How is anyone to know when you are uttering anything is truthful? By you own admission, they cannot.
Nobody can know when anyone else is telling the truth unless they have personal, direct knowledge about what that person says in any particular case.
So should I take you at your word or is this not truthful either. You have disqualified yourself as someone to pay attention to.
As I said, everything I say in this forum is, to the best of my ability and knowledge, truthful. Of course, I could be lying about that ... but then, anyone here could be lying about their supposed sense of moral obligation to truth as well, including you and KF. Whether or not you pay attention to me is up to you. However, since my arguments and counter-arguments are about logic and evidence (to the degree "evidence" can be presented in a forum like this,) whether or not I'm "telling the truth" about my personal experience is irrelevant. William J Murray
I always tell the truth, as far as I know and experience it, in this forum because it serves my interests.
Since you said
does the fact that I do not directly experience a moral duty to truthfulness or right reason disprove KF’s premise of a directly experienced, objective moral reality?
Is this also not truthful? Who can know? How is anyone to know when you are uttering anything that is truthful? By you own admission, they cannot.
My first, last and only duty is to my own enjoyment.
So should I take you at your word or is this not truthful either. You have disqualified yourself as someone to pay attention to. jerry
Jerry, I said I do not always tell the truth. I assume that's true of everyone. I always tell the truth, as far as I know and experience it, in this forum because it serves my interests. William J Murray
Is this a joke?
The commenter has announced he does things only for his own enjoyment and does not tell the truth. jerry
From Chapter 8 on the course on Natural Law. This may help those trying to understand Kf's position since it is mainly about Cicero.
Lecture Eight The Stoic Idea of Natural Law Scope: In his Republic, the Roman statesman Cicero provides the first thoroughgoing theory of natural law as “right reason in accord with nature,” but his knowledge of the subject is much indebted to Greek Stoicism. Although complete materialists, Stoics, such as Zeno and Chrysippus, held for a universal moral order that governed human beings and all other parts of the universe by “right reason, which fills all things and is the same as Zeus, lord and ruler of the universe.” A deep conservative in matters of Roman politics, Cicero tended to use appeals to natural law as a justification for existing laws and not as a basis for overturning positive laws, let alone as a basis for radical change. In distinguishing between moral and immoral warfare, he articulates a notion of just war and originates the term ius gentium (“law of nations”), a term that will play a large role in the subsequent history of natural law as the rational standard to which all legal systems are subject. He also maintains as a part of natural law the doctrine of the fundamental equality among all human beings. Outline I. Greek stoicism (begun by Zeno about 300 B.C.) championed the notion of self-reliance and “right reason in accord with nature.” A. The Stoics believed that both the material universe and all human culture were under the governance of what Zeno called “right reason, which pervades all things and is identical with Zeus, the lord and ruler of everything that exists.” B. The idea of “right reason” is important in the concept of natural law. It suggests that reason can operate rightly or wrongly. Reason operates rightly when it is discerning the truth and when it is figuring out how matters that are open to choice are to be selected in such a way as to achieve a kind of harmony. C. According to Chrysippus (232–206 B.C.), “For all beings which are social by nature, the natural law directs what must be done and forbids what must not be done.” D. Against the view that law and politics were based solely on individual or national self-interest, Panaetius (185–110 B.C.) argued for the reality of natural justice. He claimed that all human beings possess the basic capacity to participate in divine reason and that a fundamental equality and universal kinship exists among all human beings. E. The Stoics connected “right reason” to God. For them, God was perfect and impersonal, not willful or subjective. This concept had two results: 1. It allowed ethics to be seen in terms of law, rather than purely in terms of virtue. 2. Individual morality came to be seen as in the service of political morality. F. After the Roman conquest of Greece in 146 B.C., Stoicism was brought to Rome and found such adherents as Scipio Africanus the Younger. Scipio and members of his circle would appear as characters in Cicero’s dialogues. II. Cicero (106–43 B.C.) summarized the philosophical and political theories of the Stoics and transmitted to the medieval world the notion of natural law as right reason in accord with nature. A. De re publica (On the Commonwealth, 54–51 B.C.) links law and reason: 1. Book III, chapter 22, states: “There is a true law, right reason in accord with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting…. It is wrong to abrogate this law and it cannot be annulled…. There is one law, eternal and unchangeable, binding at all times upon all peoples; and there will be, as it were, one common master and ruler of men, God, who is the author of this law, its interpreter and sponsor.” 2. This passage enunciates what will be the main themes for natural law for the rest of its history. 3. The “reason” mentioned here is not just the power to form concepts or to take part in logical argumentation, but right reason, a specifically moral power by which human beings can differentiate good and evil and can discern what is in harmony with human nature and what violates human nature. 4. The passage also implies that if we override the natural law, there will be a natural law sanction?a punishment. 5. Although Cicero does not articulate the content of natural law very fully, he does make clear that, at the very least, there are duties to observe justice, to respect the lives and property of others, and to contribute to society. 6. Ancient thinkers such as Cicero do not talk in terms of natural rights but in terms of natural duties. The concept of natural duties will become important for the articulation of natural rights in the modern era. B. Book III, chapter 23, of De re publica articulates a careful distinction between just and unjust warfare. 1. In answer to the charge that states are simply the result of force and conquest, Cicero argues that Roman wars were waged to repel invaders or to restore justice. 2. He insists that for war to be justified, it must be formally declared and that war may not begin until an explicit demand for the redress of the wrong done has been made and rejected. C. De Officiis (On Moral Duties, 44 B.C.) stresses the duties we have to one another because human beings are social by nature. We may not operate simply out of self-interest. 1. This is powerfully illustrated in the passage from Book III, chapter 5: “To take away wrongfully from another and for one man to advance his own interest by the disadvantage of another man is more contrary to nature than death, than poverty, than pain, than any other evil….” 2. In direct contrast with earlier Stoics, Cicero also praises public service and political participation in this treatise. 3. Bk. III, chs. 5 & 17: It is in Cicero’s writings that the idea of ius gentium (the law of nations) appears for the first time. While there is some dispute in modern scholarship about the precise reference of this term, Cicero uses it to describe the common element in the legal systems of diverse cultures that consists of the natural law requirement of respect for justice. D. De Legibus (On Laws, 43 B.C.) makes an argument for the moral equality of all human beings on the basis of their common nature; yet paradoxically, Cicero still defends the institution of slavery (at Book III, chapter 25). E. In Book I, chapter 10, of De Legibus, Cicero expands on his concept of a common human nature. He states: “No single being is so like another … as all of us are to one another … Reason, which alone raises us above the level of the beasts, is certainly common to us all and, though varying in what it learns, at least in the capacity to learn, it is invariable.” 1. This idea is fundamental to natural law theory. 2. Yet right after he makes this comment, Cicero proceeds to defend slavery! Suggested Reading: Heinrich A. Rommen, The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social History and Philosophy, translated by Thomas R. Hanley (Indianapolis: The Liberty Fund [1936, 1948], 1998), esp. “The Nature of Law” in chapter 1: “The Legacy of Greece and Rome.” Paul E. Sigmund, Natural Law in Political Thought (Cambridge: Winthrop Publ., 1971), chapter 2: “Natural Law in Roman Thought.” Questions to Consider: 1. “Right reason” is easier to discuss in the abstract than to identify in concrete situations. What do you think are the necessary characteristics of a person with “right reason”? What are some of the factors for identifying someone’s reason as merely self-interested or insufficiently impartial? 2. The usual conditions for determining a war to be just are three: (1) formal declaration of war by proper authority, (2) a just cause, (3) right intention in using the necessary force. What do you think of this set of criteria? How would you analyze the justice of recent wars?
Sorry for the long post but it is organized (not by me but by the author.). This is one of 24 lectures on Natural Law which has a long history as we see going back to Ancient Greece and probably before that. jerry
William J Murray Do you consider the results of 100+ years of quantum physics experimentation “hard” evidence?
Is this a joke? Lieutenant Commander Data
KF @803:
WJM, that’s a strawman caricature and you know it. Conscience shocking is analogous to defibrillation, as an event that can in at least some cases restore sound functioning. Pointing to defibrillation of conscience is not appeal to “intuition” or “emotion” etc, but to a pivotal shocking event that can restore a functional state, if we are lucky. And BTW, yet again, you are unable not to appeal to the binding nature of first duties in argument, which is my actual substantial argument: the inescapable in reasoning is part of the fabric of reasoning and should be taken as self-evident. KF
Another failed attempt to salvage your argument, this time with an appeal to analogy. Just stop it, KF. If you want salvage your case,, answer the following: Can you provide the aspect of conscience that is existentially necessary and inescapable or not? If you cannot, then by your own definitions, which I have agreed to arguendo, we do not have a moral first duty to our conscience. William J Murray
LCD @802:
I’m sure you can provide some hard evidences(besides words) if you came to believe that.
Do you consider the results of 100+ years of quantum physics experimentation "hard" evidence? What do you mean "besides words?" All I can provide here is words. If I point you to papers describing the results of research and experiments, does the fact they are comprised of words disqualify them?. Perhaps you would like a video or the evidence provided in a sequence of pictures? William J Murray
WJM, that's a strawman caricature and you know it. Conscience shocking is analogous to defibrillation, as an event that can in at least some cases restore sound functioning. Pointing to defibrillation of conscience is not appeal to "intuition" or "emotion" etc, but to a pivotal shocking event that can restore a functional state, if we are lucky. A sort of paradigm shift. And BTW, yet again, you are unable not to appeal to the binding nature of first duties in argument, which is my actual substantial argument: the inescapable in reasoning is part of the fabric of reasoning and should be taken as self-evident. KF kairosfocus
William J Murray Why is that? Or, perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by “machine.” Do you mean that in the physical, material-world sense?
Some sort of mechanism that keep 'mind' running, organised,and do the job of 'selfs' inside 'mind' must exist 'Mind' fill a three-dimensional space , or is beyond space and time ? Use energy ,have a beginning, was created ,created itself ,is infinite or what? I'm sure you can provide some hard evidences(besides words) if you came to believe that. Lieutenant Commander Data
Sandy said:
You need a machine for algorithmic processing.
Why is that? Or, perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "machine." Do you mean that in the physical, material-world sense? William J Murray
KF, You quoted:
The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence.
You then immediately comment in reference to make a point extending from that quote:
That is, we cannot not claim to know regarding the external world that presents itself to us.
You're conflating the full category of metaphysical claims indicating knowledge about reality with the sub-category of metaphysical claims that include an extra-mental world. You go on:
So, any system that denies such knowledge is fatally self-referential.
Nope, because under MRT, there is a distinction between self and mind. Please note that I never say "your mind" or "my mind." Everything exists in mind. There is no world external of mind. There are countless "selfs" in mind. Thus, nothing about MRT is "fatally self-referential." You might have understood this if you asked a question instead of assuming you know all you need to know about MRT - or if you had been paying attention to what I actually say. William J Murray
William J Murray algorithmic processing of a certain category of information
You need a machine for algorithmic processing ,how appeared that super smart computer by chance or was created , who repairs it ,who chosen the operating system, who debugg the software , there is update of software? Did you think that you might be just a virus in that machine? Have antivirus that machine ? Do you think the update of antivirus is made too rare, too often or you don't know? ;) Sandy
KF @794, I'm not saying your worldview is wrong - it may very well be correct. However, I gave you your chance to support your view logically by your own terms and definitions; you failed to do so as soon as you resorted to appealing to intuition, emotion and consequences. Reiterating your argument for your worldview, and reiterating what your worldview considers (even given what little you know about MRT) to be "errors" under MRT, isn't even a challenge. You're just saying the same thing over and over again. I've already addressed your concerns and demonstrated them to be irrational worries based on erroneously evaluating MRT under the rules of your own worldview, not out of actual logic. But, we have seen that where your logic fails, you are perfectly willing to move to appeals to intuition, emotion, and consequences - or, as evidenced above, stories that are convenient to your worldview. When you're serious about challenging MRT, let me know by asking a pertinent question that might lead - logically - to some actual logical inconsistency or fundamental issue. You know, instead of just assuming you already know everything about it. William J Murray
Sandy @795:
Ask your mom if world existed before you were born.
Of course it did. If only you knew enough about my worldview to make relevant comments or ask meaningful questions - but, you do not. William J Murray
CC @793 asks:
In your view, when I crack open an egg and look at the yolk (that nobody has ever observed before), where was the information for the egg yolk before I observed it?
What a wonderful question! Thank you for actually thinking about what I have said and forming a coherent question about my worldview instead of just assuming you know the answer or its limitations. The information was in mind. The patterns of our experiences which we call the external physical world is generated by an algorithmic processing of a certain category of information. This is why much of the behavior of the physical world (shared mental experiences) is mathematically predictable and precise or statistically probabilistic in nature. Shared "external physical world" experiences might be called a module that contains both the information to be processed and the processing algorithms. Those of us who inhabit that world have that module as part of our overall identity structure; it is an internal module we share with others, connecting us together. It might be thought of as a virtual world program we have put in our computers and play by LAN (local area network.) So, the information for the egg yolk is contained in the internal information we are processing into experience, but the nature of the "shared experience we call external physical world" program is that it automatically co-ordinates experiences of the information in that module between all players - at least to the degree it can. Please remember, this is an analogy to make the concept more easily understood for those who are accustomed to thinking in a "physical reality" manner. An observer is just pure awareness or consciousness; an individual person is an individual person due to their individual information selection and processing filters/programs that select, organize and process particular sets of information a particular way, which we would call the perspective of the observer. William J Murray
William J Murray If only there was some way to demonstrate that such a world existed to be “processed.” Unfortunately, there is not.
Ask your mom if world existed before you were born. Sandy
WJM, >>In order to see how the laws of nature might extend to, or help us with, how one should behave or how we should establish a society, one must obviously comprehend at least the fundamental qualities of what “nature” is and what the actual laws governing it are. What are the fundamental, necessary, unavoidable aspects of our existence? Let’s try to clarify what we are talking about here in broad principle. To exist as an identity requires an arrangement of subject and context. There is no A without not-A, but without properly understanding the essential nature of our A & not-A situation, we cannot even begin to further rationally understand what is going on in that situation. >> Actually, the point is, that we have rational, responsible freedom and exhibit certain characteristics coeval with such features of what makes us human. Given the kind of exchanges above, rational responsible freedom was long since expanded on above, at 555:
15: So, duty comes from freedom manifesting a rational, self-moved [living, en-souled, conscience guided] nature. That is
a – reflexive, self-moved agent A b – may act on contingent possibilities C1 to CN, c – which are rival and practically exhaustive d – of which Ci and Cj are the focal, best choices [by whatever relevant criteria] e – where, the opportunity cost of Ci is Cj foregone and the converse f – where too, it is possible to choose the worse and to be under the impression that it is the better g – so, the matter of responsible rational choice as to which of Ci and Cj to eventuate becomes pivotal h – we thus see the is-ought gap, as ought implies say Cj is better warranted but selection of Ci remains possible and is often in fact taken. (There is even the possibility that Ck may have been a better alternative by whatever criteria) i – the concept of freedom is here focussed in representative agent A’s power to identify Ci vs Cj [as opposed to Ck] from C1 to Cn, and to then eventuate whichever is favoured. j – selection criteria and evaluation as well as power to choose are pervaded with rational choice, criteria, values, and a sense of duty often attested to by the familiar voice of conscience [especially when severe risks and consequences are potentially on the line and avoidable ignorance or warped thinking can lead to a bias towards ruin] k – in this context, duty in the first instance is the conscience-attested voice of ought. l – Ought that needs not be eventuated but unless it is habitually implemented, given severe risks of various kinds, personal ruin, ruin of close valued agents [family, colleagues], ruin of community, ruin of civilisation, ruin of human existence may follow, especially id habitually poorly choosing agent A becomes the representative pattern. m – however, ought is not mere consequentialism, consequence to self, family, neighbour, community, civilisation and world were habitual patterns of abuse and folly to be established and become the norm are actually an expression of a key criterion for testing oughtness, the categorical imperative or sustainability principle and the linked civil peace of justice, with due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. n – where also we see ability to hypothesis and evaluate chains of likely or possible consequences are part of the framework of rational agency, with the voice of duty counselling that choice towards ruin is unjust, imprudent, irrational etc. o – further, we notice that the logic of probable implication and possible consequence emerges, in a context where the power of a non-factual contingency Ci/j/k to lead to true or probably true or possibly true consequences were worlds i/ j/k eventuated through choice, is pivotal. Duty to reason, warrant, truth, are embedded. p – where, duty also comes through as multi-dimensional, to self, family, community, civilisation, world, where there may be clashes and choices of lesser of evils thus need to make prudent compromises that ameliorate intensity and/or extent of evil but cannot eliminate such. Evil, being regarded as frustration or perversion of a valuable or good thing from its proper often naturally evident end. For example, human thriving pervades the above. q – and duty may well point onward, as we see good vs evil surfacing, thence the issues of answering Euthyphro and Hume, that the ultimate locus of the good and duty is in the root of our own contingent reality. r – that is, we have a bill of requisites for such a root, consistent with the said first duties: a characterisation of the root agent, A_0: inherently good and utterly wise, necessary, maximally great being capable of causing and sustaining worlds. s – such A_0 would be finitely remote, at beginning of our and other worlds. Also, as capable, good and wise to maximal extent, bridges is and ought in the root of reality. So, ought is non-arbitrary and will be partly intelligible [we are limited in our rationality]. It is also grounded, pace Hume’s is-is then poof ought-ought. Ought comes from one and the same root as is, on this candidate. Where, as necessary, as a candidate, either impossible or actual as can be drawn out. Where, there is no good reason to hold as impossible. t – wisdom, goodness etc also point to personality, person not impersonal entity or force. u – and more
16: These constitute a drawing out and explanation of how things tie together not a proof. The act of proving is itself riddled with appeals to said first duties. 17: Truly first principles and duties are antecedent to and pervade the fabric of reasoned thought, speech and action, thus proof. They cannot be proved as they are how we prove and see as proved to adequate degree. They can, however be acknowledged as inescapable, inescapably true and self-evident on pain of absurdity on attempted denial or dismissal. 18: So no, the hyperskeptical demand for arbitrarily high warrant itself relies for whatever persuasiveness it has, on the force of said first duties.
Notice, from 555/15: "duty comes from freedom manifesting a rational, self-moved [living, en-souled, conscience guided] nature." Conscience, a well known phenomenon, is a witness, and a sound conscience, a guide -- hence the value of a key case study that shocks the conscience out of its benumbed, warped state so that fresh insights can open up fresh, renewed, sounder understanding. Intelligence, reflecting the freedom to reason, hold intents, choose, speak and act, in turn points to responsibility to use freedom aright. Plato's phrase, self-moved reflects reflexivity, as a first initiating agent so that mechanical and/or stochastic cause-effect chains are secondary, not primary sources of the play-out of events. In which context, we may ponder the core principle of justice bound up in the definition that expands the classical, habitual or institutional disposition to give to each his/her due. That is, that justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. So, we see how issues of justice can reflect principles that are intelligible: how does due balance arise? Where, freedom is pivotal by our humanity, and leads to the balance of rights and correlative responsibilities that marks the civil peace of justice. Indeed, a right, properly, is a reasonable expectation and binding morally grounded claim that others of like nature ought to respect and uphold one's person in particular ways rooted in the dignity of being human: life, liberty, honestly acquired property, innocent reputation etc. That mutuality in turn points to the premise that to justly claim a given right, one must first be in the manifest right on the matter as there can be no right to demand that the other participate in, uphold or is compelled to lie regarding an evil, including the evil nature of a particular claimed right. Such also reflects the Categorical Imperative, that what is morally sound is universalisable but what is unsound cannot be universalised. This of course picks up how evils are parasites on the good, warping, frustrating, blocking achievement of due ends, which are often naturally evident. Such is the context of my original discussion regarding our inescapable first duties . . . we may flout, deny, object to them but we cannot but appeal to or depend on or parasite off them:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
Such can be understood, but cannot be proved; for, the attempt to prove will inevitably be found to implicitly rely on these said first principles and duties, to gain persuasive or probative traction. This is the inescapability that marks such as first duties and principles [which of course directly includes distinct identity i/l/o core characteristics, non-contradiction, excluded middle . . . without which we cannot even communicate in verbal language using distinct symbols]. Let's pick up your triple list:
1. Principle of order (such as fundamental logic, math, geometry) that fundamentally necessitates the self/context (A and not-A) relationship and the capacity to exist as a sentient being 2. Free will (preferential intent, not the same as “free action”) 3. All experiences of A and not-A occur within mind as mental phenomena (regardless of where the information for those experiences comes from.)
Yes, we need to live in a world of predictable, reliable order rather than a chaos. Otherwise, choice is irrelevant. So would be reason. Such includes that entities and states of affairs reflect distinct stable characteristics and patterns. Freedom entails that we may choose, which has in it purpose that is preferred. However, this does not erode the distinction you have tried to brush aside, between preference as inclination and preference as what one chooses. One often must discipline oneself to choose contrary to inclination and even habits ["bad habits"], towards goals reflecting responsibility and wisdom. Diet, rest, exercise, lifelong learning and sober reflection etc readily come to mind, all of which are often acquired tastes. Experience is a phenomenon of a self-aware, conscious creature, and mindedness speaks to that consciousness with emphasis on the intellect as making rational sense. I am appeared to redly by a certain somewhat spherical object of about 15 inches circumference with a stained, polished leather cover and a multiply stitched seam is an experience. Such credibly involves experience with the ball one bowls, bats, scores runs with or gets out from should one say be leg before the wicket. Involved in this experience (a favourite pastime in this part of the world connected to regional identity to the point that Cricket ongoings are national and regional news worthy of the reflection of Prime Ministers in solemn assembly). We are looking at intentionality, here IEP is helpful:
If I think about a piano, something in my thought picks out a piano. If I talk about cigars, something in my speech refers to cigars. This feature of thoughts and words, whereby they pick out, refer to, or are about things, is intentionality. In a word, intentionality is aboutness. Many mental states exhibit intentionality. If I believe that the weather is rainy today, this belief of mine is about today’s weather—that it is rainy. Desires are similarly directed at, or about things: if I desire a mosquito to buzz off, my desire is directed at the mosquito, and the possibility that it depart. Imaginings seem to be directed at particular imaginary scenarios, while regrets are directed at events or objects in the past, as are memories. And perceptions seem to be, similarly, directed at or about the objects we perceptually encounter in our environment. We call mental states that are directed at things in this way ‘intentional states’. The major role played by intentionality in affairs of the mind led Brentano (1884) to regard intentionality as “the mark of the mental”; a necessary and sufficient condition for mentality. But some non-mental phenomena seem to display intentionality too—pictures, signposts, and words, for example. Nevertheless, the intentionality of these phenomena seems to be derived from the intentionality of the mind that produces them. A sound is only a word if it has been conferred with meaning by the intentions of a speaker or perhaps a community of speakers; while a painting, however abstract, seems only to have a subject matter insofar as its painter intends it to. Whether or not all mental phenomena are intentional, then, it certainly seems to be the case that all intentional phenomena are mental in origin. The root of the word ‘intentionality’ reflects the notion that it expresses, deriving from the Latin intentio, meaning ‘directed at’ . . .
Intentionality directly connects to rationality, truthfulness, error vs accuracy etc. The truth accurately describes entities, events, states of affairs in the world, or in possible worlds were they actualised. In that context, appearance vs reality obtains, and the debate since the Kantians on the ugly gulch finds a sufficient answer in opening remarks of F H Bradley in his Appearance and Reality:
We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole [--> i.e. the focus of Metaphysics is critical studies of worldviews] . . . . The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. [--> this is the "ugly gulch" of the Kantians] For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise . . . [such] objections . . . are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and . . . a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispel [them]. [Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn, 1897 (1916 printing), pp. 1 - 2; INTRODUCTION. At Web Archive.]
That is, we cannot not claim to know regarding the external world that presents itself to us. So, any system that denies such knowledge is fatally self-referential. Going beyond, any scheme that suggests that the in common world of say a Bryan Lara batting 300+ runs to the delight of the Cricketing public, is a figment of collective . . . or is it guises of a single . . . imagination has no objective referent outside our imagination is immediately highly dubious. It cannot reasonably be presented as seen as true to one of appropriate matured experience and as necessarily so once understood, and this on pain of immediate, patent absurdity on attempted denial. The self evident claims regarding reducing world to a play wholly within mind fails. Going further, it is clear that we cannot soundly deny that we experience a collective world. I recall vividly, the afternoon in the 80's where the Windies batted like men determined to do the impossible and won a match they should not have, with the whole uni campus glued to radios and rejoicing, reflecting the whole region. I recall, the conversation that this was an epochal event, one that would be passed down generations, with I was there, listening, watching or even attending that day. Those who deny that the objectivity of that experience of an external, in common, massively public event with Gus Logie -- the formerly barefoot 16 year old phenom from Guyana -- showing the glory of his potential, is veridical to an external reality have a tough row to hoe. Their implication of collective grand delusion on a world independent of human existence, perception or awareness, is self referential and self discrediting. Sorry, the Pacific islands were there, to be settled before the first Polynesian sailors ventured forth. The stars of the milky way were distinctly there before Galileo and others turned a telescope skyward. The kestrels roosting in the eaves or the fire ants mounding a citrus tree or the agoutis supping at fallen fruit next to a certain ghaut beyond St Johns village are independent of my consciousness, I discover them, I don't invent them. The accuracy of Pythagoras' theorem and of Apollonius' theorem or Thales' theorem was so before we framed such in a rational context. In short, there is no good reason to dismiss Reidian common sense regarding the external world. In that context, there is no good reason to doubt or dismiss that we exhibit self-moved conscious, conscience guided mindedness and act as responsible, rational, significantly free agents. Where, we cannot escape the force of the listed first duties, as is invariably manifested by the attempt. So while we debate, perhaps we should notice such a phenomenon as pervasive and instructive. KF kairosfocus
WJM, In your view, when I crack open an egg and look at the yolk (that nobody has ever observed before), where was the information for the egg yolk before I observed it? Concealed Citizen
LCD said:
: ) External world is not produced by mind ,is processed by mind. A ‘tiny’ difference
If only there was some way to demonstrate that such a world existed to be "processed." Unfortunately, there is not. CC said:
: True. But your overall view can’t answer why/how things happen outside an experiencer’s experience.
It can't? Tell me, under my view, what is it that individuates one observer/experiencer, from another, and what determines the nature of any particular observer's experiences? Under my view, does anything "happen" outside of every experiencer's observation? Is there even such a place? How do different experiencers share experiences, and how is it that shared experience is so (relatively) consistent between different observers? I mean, since you think you're so familiar with my overall view. :) William J Murray
WJM: This is the fundamental nature of existence and reality: as the experiencer, we are entities of mind, and our experiences are entirely of mind. Until your worldview begins with this, it is a delusional worldview, unmoored to existential reality.
True. But your overall view can't answer why/how things happen outside an experiencer's experience. Concealed Citizen
William J Murray The “grand delusion,” KF, is your belief that a world external of mind exists.
: ) External world is not produced by mind ,is processed by mind. A 'tiny' difference . Lieutenant Commander Data
This is the fundamental nature of existence and reality: as the experiencer, we are entities of mind, and our experiences are entirely of mind. Until your worldview begins with this, it is a delusional worldview, unmoored to existential reality. William J Murray
KF, Do you believe that when scientists research and make scientific models, they are researching and making models of a world external of mind? Do you believe they are experimenting on a world external of mind? I bet you do. The problem with that belief is that it is obviously, necessarily false; nobody can actually research, conduct experiments on, or make models of any world external of mind because it is existentially impossible to do so. The only thing that anyone can actually research, conduct experiments on, or make models of is internal mental experiences. When other people in our experience report they share those internal mental experiences, we rightfully place that shared experience into the category of shared mental experiences regardless of how we may otherwise label that category. There is no escaping that fact. To believe you are doing otherwise could be reasonably considered delusional thinking or delusional labeling. In fact, your insistence that a world external of mind when there is no possibility, even in principle, of empirically evidencing such a world might be considered a delusional belief; the only place an empirical experience occurs is in mind, and the only way to sort or arrange that evidence is in mind using entirely mental tools. It is only your ingrained habit of conflating "reality" with "the world external of mind" that generates the irrational fear that relabeling a category of experience to better reflect our unavoidable existential state will lead to "grand delusion." If your worldview requires that you deny the very existential nature of all experience, and insist that something exists you have no capacity to access in any way, even in principle, what would you call that other than "grand delusion?" The "grand delusion," KF, is your belief that a world external of mind exists. MRT admits that even if such a world exists, we have no possible access to it, accepts this existential reality and moves forward rationally from there. William J Murray
KF: said:
Really? Or, is it that we see the choice of unresponsiveness to principles of justice and where they point?
Principle of justice? Tell me what aspect of the "Principle of Justice" is existentially necessary and unavoidable. While you're at it, also tell me what aspect of "conscience" is existentially necessary and unavoidable. Or do you want to throw in yet another ad hoc principle of our existential nature to try and salvage your argument? Your cannot, or else you wouldn't use an appeal to consequences to make your case.
It implies that our experienced in common world is a grand delusion.
It implies no such thing and I demonstrated that in my "The Boy Who Cried Solipsism" post. Put simply: "objective world external of mind" is, and can only be even in principle, a label we put on a category of internal mental experience regardless of where one theorizes that information comes from. Every argument you make about those experiences necessarily requires that you successfully navigate the various categories of internal mental experience regardless of how you label them or where you think the information for them comes from. Unless you are currently having a problem distinguishing between categories of internal mental experiences, say between logic and dreams, or between memory and imaginative fantasy, how is changing the label of the category currently identified as "external physical world" to "universally shared mental experiences" going to suddenly render you unable to distinguish between "delusion" (a particular form of not-shared mental experience) and "shared mental experiences?" They are still categorically oppositional. William J Murray
Getting back to the "Laws of Nature" aspect of this thread: In order to see how the laws of nature might extend to, or help us with, how one should behave or how we should establish a society, one must obviously comprehend at least the fundamental qualities of what "nature" is and what the actual laws governing it are. What are the fundamental, necessary, unavoidable aspects of our existence? Let's try to clarify what we are talking about here in broad principle. To exist as an identity requires an arrangement of subject and context. There is no A without not-A, but without properly understanding the essential nature of our A & not-A situation, we cannot even begin to further rationally understand what is going on in that situation. We can clearly understand at least some of the existentially necessary and unavoidable aspects of the subject A, which is us. Some of those existential qualities of "self" are listed in this thread, let me update them appropriate to this matter: 1. Principle of order (such as fundamental logic, math, geometry) that fundamentally necessitates the self/context (A and not-A) relationship and the capacity to exist as a sentient being 2. Free will (preferential intent, not the same as "free action") 3. All experiences of A and not-A occur within mind as mental phenomena (regardless of where the information for those experiences comes from.) From those three necessary, unavoidable conditions, can we find what is the essential determining law or principle that distinguishes between self and context? The most common conceptual arrangements that distinguish or describe the relationship between self and other might be described as internal vs external or subjective vs objective. External and objective are almost universally considered to be an external, physical, objective world. But look at #3 in the list; every experience we have of A and not-A is necessarily internal or else we wouldn't have the experience. All experience occurs in mind. So, the self/other relationship cannot actually have a fundamental, existentially necessary "external" quality. In fact, whatever "other" actually is, it cannot even be said to exist outside of the commonly held concept of "self," because all of our experiences occur within what we usually categorize as self. "Self," as we normally conceptualize it, is where all experiences occur, even if we experience something as "not-self." Does this contradict #1, that sentient experience as an identity requires a "not-self," or "not-A," in order to exist at all? Not at all. This issue is because we have fundamentally misapprehend the true essential nature of "self" and "other." Self and not-self does not require the quality distinction of internal vs external, most obviously demonstrated when we dream. A dream is entirely internal, but we still have a self and not-self relationship experience. What about the qualities of objective vs subjective? Once we disentangle "objective" from "external," and accept that all experience (even that of "objective" phenomena) occurs internally in mind, we may gain a better perspective of the nature of "self" and "other". What does "objective" mean without the existentially impossible distinction of internal vs external? "Objective" cannot be rationally described as external of mind, so "objective" can only mean universal mental phenomena or commodities; objective or necessary qualities of mind and all mental experience, even if one is having a delusion or hallucination, there would be no escaping these commodities or qualities. Let's remember, what we're trying to do here is understand the existential nature of self and other. It cannot be defined as "internal vs external" because all experience of any sort is internal in mind. Regardless of mental categories of mental experience - what we call "the external world," dreams, memory, imagination, hallucination, delusion, or the experience of logic and math, what is the essential, unavoidable, objective nature of self and other? Simply put, it is observer vs the observed, or the experiencer vs the experienced. We experience this root self/other distinction in every experience, even if we are bodiless third-party observers in a dream or locked in a deep delusion; even when we access and use logic and reason. So, the self/other relationship does not require either a world external of mind or the usual distinction between objective and subjective (specific phenomena like "that brick wall over there" vs "I'm imagining a flying elephant;" it only requires, and cannot avoid, the root objective distinction between observer and observed, or experiencer vs experienced, even if what one is experiencing is entirely internal and subjective. The inescapable objective nature of self and other is that of observer and observed. No other qualities are necessary or unavoidable. What, then, is the nature of "natural laws" like gravity? Is gravitation a necessary aspect of our existential nature? Is electromagnetism or entropy? The strong and weak nuclear forces? Those are all, and can only be, descriptions of patterns of particular mental experiences. Are those particular mental patterns necessary to fulfill the relationship between experiencer and the experienced? Obviously not. So, what we commonly refer to as "natural laws" (gravity, etc.) are entirely disposable wrt the the essential, inescapable, fundamental aspects of the nature of our existence. William J Murray
WJM, I comment on some points: >>I’ve already done that with MRT. Your only substantive challenge was an appeal to consequence, which I thoroughly dismantled in my “The Boy Who Cried Solipsism” post, which you refused to participate in, and have since refused to address.>> 1: I have been reluctant to take this up, as I have been busy due to local developments. Also, I do not really want to get into such an off main focus potentially deeply polarising issue but it looks like I will have to, in due course. >> MRT is, in fact, far more efficient (Occam’s Razor,)>> 2: It implies that our experienced in common world is a grand delusion. Reidian common sense is a better start point than a hyperskeptical, Plato's Cave/matrix dismissal of our common experience. Not least, as any such scheme radically undermines the credibility of our experiences, thought and reasoning. 3: The common sense view takes common experience as largely veridical, absent specific reason to reject particular points. That is, the principle of credulity is preferable to that of hyperskepticism, given self-referential impacts of the latter. 4: These are general issues for any view that in effect dismisses our common experience. >> is 100% compatible and retrodictive wrt quantum research,>> 5: Quantum results are generally compatible with major worldviews. >>and solves the “mind-matter” interaction gap problem.>> 6: Oddly, so does a Derek Smith, two tier controller cybernetic loop framework, especially if one uses quantum influences to address interface. >>It is also impossible to even pose any other theory without referring to mental reality.>> 7: I doubt there are serious worldviews alternatives that broadly deny that we have conscious experiences of self-awareness, awareness of a common world, thinking, etc. The issue is to interpret such. >>IOW, MRT is inescapable and necessary.>> 8: An account of conscious mindedness is necessary, something a tad different. >>But I guess that and my challenge about conscience are just going to go unaddressed because you and I both know you cannot make either case.>> 9: In due course, we will look at your proposals. >> Your own statement admitted as much when you said: Specifically, we become immediately, intuitively aware of duties to sound conscience, to neighbour and to justice. Reflecting on these, we see their inescapability, centrality to responsible reason and action, indeed that they bridge to duties to truth, right reason and prudence. When the lynchpin in your case for an objective morality that leads to “causing physical pain in others for personal pleasure is wrong” is intuition and making appeals to emotion and consequence>> 10: Strawman. Experience triggers reflection on why we respond in certain ways, above and beyond whatever ideologies etc we may bring to the situation. In this case, a grieving father facing murder of his child. The case is an inductive example pointing beyond itself. >> with personal stories about local tragedies and how the community came together, or what life would be like otherwise,>> 11: The response of a Campus Community speaks to in-common experience and some degree of mutual reflection on its import. 12: The Categorical Imperative is a useful tool in such reflection. >> you’ve given up the ghost.>> 13: Really? Or, is it that we see the choice of unresponsiveness to principles of justice and where they point? >>Can you provide the aspect of conscience that is existentially necessary and inescapable or not?>> 14: Without a community of people who sense right from wrong, truth from error and duty to the right and the true, community will collapse. So will reasonableness, it is the voice of conscience that motivates responsiveness to duty. >> If you cannot, then by your own definitions, which I have agreed to arguendo, we do not have a moral first duty to our conscience.>> 15: Actually, part of what is eating our civilisation right now, is broad-based deliberately promoted mass benumbing and diversion of conscience into a warped distortion of itself. Hypersensitivity to possible offence in Dr Seuss vs utter desensitisation to the mass slaughter of 63 million unborn children. Now with galloping entanglement of vaccination programmes with mass abortion. And more, but again, the local demands attention as a crisis unfolds. KF kairosfocus
VL, for the moment, on a sidetrack, we are not dealing with religious traditions but with the philosophical question, what is the source of worlds, where at least one world has in it responsibly, rationally significantly free thus morally governed creatures. A known serious candidate is the God of ethical theism, much as described: inherently good, utterly wise, necessary being, capable of being source of worlds. Earlier, you suggested that God is such that he is vs he is not do not exhaust possibilities. That is why I showed that this is not that sort of question, but one where in fact a serious candidate necessary being either is or is impossible of being; which last went out the window once Plantinga decisively answered the deductive form problem of evil. For this particular matter, various theistic and non theistic religious traditions can be partly right or even wholly wrong without changing the matter, which is philosophical. In fact, given that a religious tradition has to be somewhat plausible in the teeth of human realities and experiences, it would be very hard for a tradition to be wholly wrong. Indeed, it is fairly easy to document strong commonalities on core ethics, for dealing with those recognised as stakeholders in effect. For example there are essentially no cultures that praise cowardice in battle. KF kairosfocus
Jesus and Buddha are not mutually exhaustive. What about Allah, or Shiva, or the Jews who don't accept Jesus as the Christians do, etc., not to mention various offshoots such as the Sikhs or the Unification Church or the religions of Native American Indians or the Australian aborigines or the many native African religions, or the Ainu of northern Japan or the Tao of Taoism ... Wikipedia says this:
Religious traditions fall into super-groups in comparative religion, arranged by historical origin and mutual influence. Abrahamic religions originate in West Asia,[14][15] Indian religions in the Indian subcontinent (South Asia)[16] and East Asian religions in East Asia.[17] Another group with supra-regional influence are Afro-American religion,[18] which have their origins in Central and West Africa. Middle Eastern religions:[19] Abrahamic religions are the largest group, and these consist mainly of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Bahá?í Faith. They are named for the patriarch Abraham, and are unified by the practice of monotheism. Today, at least 3.8 billion people are followers of Abrahamic religions[20] and are spread widely around the world apart from the regions around East and Southeast Asia. Several Abrahamic organizations are vigorous proselytizers.[21] Iranian religions, partly of Indo-European origins,[22][23] include Zoroastrianism, Yazdânism, Uatsdin, Yarsanism and historical traditions of Gnosticism (Mandaeism, Manichaeism). Indian religions, originated in Greater India and they tend to share a number of key concepts, such as dharma, karma, reincarnation among others. They are of the most influence across the Indian subcontinent, East Asia, Southeast Asia, as well as isolated parts of Russia. The main Indian religions are Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. East Asian religions consist of several East Asian religions which make use of the concept of Tao (in Chinese) or D? (in Japanese or Korean). They include many Chinese folk religions, Taoism and Confucianism, as well as Korean and Japanese religion influenced by Chinese thought. African religions:[19] The religions of the tribal peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa, but excluding ancient Egyptian religion, which is considered to belong to the ancient Middle East;[19] African diasporic religions practiced in the Americas, imported as a result of the Atlantic slave trade of the 16th to 18th centuries, building on traditional religions of Central and West Africa. Indigenous ethnic religions, found on every continent, now marginalized by the major organized faiths in many parts of the world or persisting as undercurrents (folk religions) of major religions. Includes traditional African religions, Asian shamanism, Native American religions, Austronesian and Australian Aboriginal traditions, Chinese folk religions, and postwar Shinto. Under more traditional listings, this has been referred to as "paganism" along with historical polytheism. New religious movement is the term applied to any religious faith which has emerged since the 19th century, often syncretizing, re-interpreting or reviving aspects of older traditions such as Ayyavazhi, Mormonism, Ahmadiyya, Pentecostalism, polytheistic reconstructionism, and so forth.
Bit more here than just some either/or dichotomy: lots of different ideas here about God in the broad generic sense. Viola Lee
VL, actually, when P and not P are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, then it is one or the other, not both nor neither. In this context, God is, or God is not, but not both or a superposition of both, or neither (e.g. there is no coherent concept of God so God-talk is undefined). God being the inherently good, utterly wise creator and sustainer of worlds, a necessary and maximally great being. What may be superposed is our being in a mixed state of doubt and belief, but that is opinions and warrant not actual existence or non existence. KF kairosfocus
Viola Lee Yes, but they could both be wrong.
:)Yes,but probability that you could be wrong is incalculable bigger than the one of them who is wrong .
Also, Buddha, renounced his wealth and led a life similar to Jesus’s in poverty, compassion, and teaching.
You mean was so egoistic that left his wife and newborn son, to find a way to escape himself from the pain of life? Is that compassion ? Ask his family. Jesus on the cross before death entrusted his Mother to his beloved disciple St. John.
Also, Hinduism says that as long as one is caught in the cycle of birth and rebirth one is subject to Karma, which means that the consequences of one’s actions will always eventually fall back on one. However, one can escape the cycle and achieve Nirvana.
1.Buddha was born as hinduist and then rejected hinduism,inventing his "system". 2. If we think to IRS and then we think to karma ,we agree that IRS is child play comparing with what organisation and data base are necessary for karma to function over milions and milions of years. Who organise that "company" of fixing the karma for everyone? Lieutenant Commander Data
WJM, a concrete experience has in it the wider ingredients of reality. At some point, reluctantly and when there is time given local pressures there will need to be a comparative difficulties assessment. KF kairosfocus
A modern day Cicero trying to correct the problems of the world. Jordan Peterson lays out his rules for a fruitful life. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-valuable-things-everyone-should-know/answer/Jordan-B-Peterson Is he a student of natural law? He has certainly studied a lot of human history. His new book, out yesterday.
Beyond Order: Twelve More Rules for Life
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/beyond-order-12-more-rules-for-life/ A quote from Jordan Peterson about his new book.
That notorious racist Dr Seuss is unfairly oppressing my new book Beyond Order to #12 on Amazon's bestseller chart (10 of the top 11 books are his)
jerry
Yes, but they could both be wrong. Also, Buddha, renounced his wealth and led a life similar to Jesus's in poverty, compassion, and teaching. Also, Hinduism says that as long as one is caught in the cycle of birth and rebirth one is subject to Karma, which means that the consequences of one's actions will always eventually fall back on one. However, one can escape the cycle and achieve Nirvana. I'm not arguing for Buddhism because I think it is a culturally embedded narrative just like all religions, but I would like to see it characterized more accurately. I also like some of the things I know about Buddhism better than Christianity, but those are metaphysical preferences that fit me: others choose to prefer other views. Viola Lee
Buddha born in a palace .Jesus in a stable. One said there is no God ,the other said that He is God. One said no self exist ,the other said every single one of us is priceless for Him. One said no one can escape from Karma, the other said all your debts are erased. Let's agree Jesus and Buddha cannot both be right. Your pick! Lieutenant Commander Data
Jerry,
It’s interesting to know that Buddhism, Taoism and much of Hinduism are not religions.
Indeed true. And worth saying here.
But given that, all believe in natural law rooted in their understanding of the universe and the nature of humans
Here's how I would fix that: But given that, all believe in natural law rooted in their understanding of the universe and their understanding of the nature of humans. That understanding of humans varies a fair amount. And regardless of how close to reality it is, it can never make an ought out of an is in a universal way. Humans start with their premises, and they reason from there. The premises vary between humans. So "never the twain shall meet" when it comes to universal conclusions (morality.) Concealed Citizen
WJM: and solves the “mind-matter” interaction gap problem Not any more than a virtual reality view. And but it raises the "how is all this in my 'mind' when I'm not conscious of it all being in my 'mind'" question. Oops! Like the interpretations of QM. All the interpretations of QM are equally non-scientific, but the one that individuals choose is the one that conforms to their non-scientific, unprovable, philosophy, that one holds, a-priori. Humans are funny. Concealed Citizen
Kairosfocus I think Ravi Zacharias...
Jesus and Buddha: Jesus: You said you recalled an infinite number of births, didn't you? Buddha: Yes. Jesus: But you also had a final birth? Buddha: Yes. Jesus: How can an infinite number have finality? Buddha: Shall we then call it numberless? (The Lotus and the Cross-R.Z.) Lieutenant Commander Data
Latter today I will listen to the chapter of the Natural History course dealing with Cicero. Here is a summary of this chapter of the course from the course guide book.
In his Republic, the Roman statesman Cicero provides the first thoroughgoing theory of natural law as “right reason in accord with nature,” but his knowledge of the subject is much indebted to Greek Stoicism. Although complete materialists, Stoics, such as Zeno and Chrysippus, held for a universal moral order that governed human beings and all other parts of the universe by “right reason, which fills all things and is the same as Zeus, lord and ruler of the universe.” A deep conservative in matters of Roman politics, Cicero tended to use appeals to natural law as a justification for existing laws and not as a basis for overturning positive laws, let alone as a basis for radical change. In distinguishing between moral and immoral warfare, he articulates a notion of just war and originates the term ius gentium (“law of nations”), a term that will play a large role in the subsequent history of natural law as the rational standard to which all legal systems are subject. He also maintains as a part of natural law the doctrine of the fundamental equality among all human beings.
jerry
KF challenges:
If you dispute that, put up an alternative _____ and address comparative difficulties ______
I've already done that with MRT. Your only substantive challenge was an appeal to consequence, which I thoroughly dismantled in my "The Boy Who Cried Solipsism" post, which you refused to participate in, and have since refused to address. MRT is, in fact, far more efficient (Occam's Razor,) is 100% compatible and retrodictive wrt quantum research, and solves the "mind-matter" interaction gap problem. It is also impossible to even pose any other theory without referring to mental reality. IOW, MRT is inescapable and necessary. But I guess that and my challenge about conscience are just going to go unaddressed because you and I both know you cannot make either case. Your own statement admitted as much when you said:
Specifically, we become immediately, intuitively aware of duties to sound conscience, to neighbour and to justice. Reflecting on these, we see their inescapability, centrality to responsible reason and action, indeed that they bridge to duties to truth, right reason and prudence.
When the lynchpin in your case for an objective morality that leads to "causing physical pain in others for personal pleasure is wrong" is intuition and making appeals to emotion and consequence with personal stories about local tragedies and how the community came together, or what life would be like otherwise, you've given up the ghost. Can you provide the aspect of conscience that is existentially necessary and inescapable or not? If you cannot, then by your own definitions, which I have agreed to arguendo, we do not have a moral first duty to our conscience. William J Murray
Jerry, I spoke to Cicero for the very simple reason that he provoked my thinking, as outlined. Note, the issue of inescapability is independent of idea sources, it is directly observable, e.g. your appeals to fact and to warrant just above. That we can be shown to have duties does not mean that we agree on worldviews or traditions etc, it just means that we face certain duties. I think Ravi Zacharias noted that in India people look both ways before crossing the road, which directly ties to POI, LNC and LEM, despite a common perception that such adherence is civilisation specific. I think much the same happens in Japan, Cambodia, China etc, even Australia for Aborigines. I think many Burmese viewed the treatment of Ms Kee [sp?] as unjust over decades and deplored the injustice. KF kairosfocus
VL, strawman again. I have spoken to live options, as in the main discussed alternatives widely taken as plausible; one could doubtless construct an indefinitely large number of possible worldviews, cf Science Fiction and Fantasy, there is no real time to explore such an indefinite number, absent serious warrant or at least widespread plausibility. I have also spoken to historically once viable views now largely set aside such as henotheism, polytheism and the like. Animism is not a major option in our civilisation save insofar as it is syncretistic at effectively folk level or operates in sub cultures or ethnic minorities. Feel free to argue any other arguably live option ____ and put up how it fares on comparative difficulties ____ such that it deserves scarce time and energy. KF kairosfocus
It’s interesting to know that Buddhism, Taoism and much of Hinduism are not religions. But given that, all believe in natural law rooted in their understanding of the universe and the nature of humans. Natural Law is primarily formalized in Western traditions but exist everywhere. From Wikipedia:
Natural law(Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a system of law based on a close observation of human nature, and based on values intrinsic to human nature that can be deduced and applied independent of positive law (the enacted laws of a state or society).According to natural law theory, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason." Natural law theory can also refer to "theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality.
Cicero pops up continually on this thread (over 50 times) because he is one of the early major proponents of natural law and its obligations and a major influence over the centuries till even today. Also from Wikipedia:
Cicero influenced the discussion of natural law for many centuries to come, up through the era of the American Revolution. The jurisprudence of the Roman Empire was rooted in Cicero, who held "an extraordinary grip ... upon the imagination of posterity" as "the medium for the propagation of those ideas which informed the law and institutions of the empire."Cicero's conception of natural law "found its way to later centuries notably through the writings of Saint Isidore of Seville and the Decretum of Gratian."Thomas Aquinas, in his summary of medieval natural law, quoted Cicero's statement that "nature" and "custom" were the sources of a society's laws. The Renaissance Italian historian Leonardo Bruni praised Cicero as the person "who carried philosophy from Greece to Italy, and nourished it with the golden river of his eloquence."The legal culture of Elizabethan England, exemplified by Sir Edward Coke, was "steeped in Ciceronian rhetoric."The Scottish moral philosopher Francis Hutcheson, as a student at Glasgow, "was attracted most by Cicero, for whom he always professed the greatest admiration."[More generally in eighteenth-century Great Britain, Cicero's name was a household word among educated people. Likewise, "in the admiration of early Americans Cicero took pride of place as orator, political theorist, stylist, and moralist."
But similar proscriptions/prescriptions were part of nearly every society since the beginning of time. For example, Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism all have natural law theories as part of their teachings. We’re they observing different human natures? jerry
KF, you persist in your constricted view that "ethical theism, evolutionary materialistic scientism, and pantheism" are the only possible worldviews. You also persist in not addressing various critical points that I and others have made about your views, and you persist in instead posting thousands of words that you have posted before. At least you are persistent, but you are not effective. Viola Lee
VL, I need to say a few words on inference to the best explanation (and more broadly abduction), as a matter of inductive logic [in the modern sense of induction], indeed it is the logic of scientific theorising, historical and forensic investigation, etc. Let me clip Wikipedia inadvertently testifying against interest (and do you see what inductive principles of logic and evidence I am appealing to, with what underlying duties?):
INDUCTIVE REASONING: Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, of the truth of the conclusion.[1] It is also described as a method where one's experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.[2] Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general), although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.[3] Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given . . . ABDUCTIVE REASONING: Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,[1] abductive inference,[1] or retroduction[2]) is a form of logical inference formulated and advanced by American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce beginning in the last third of the 19th century. It starts with an observation or set of observations and then seeks to find the simplest and most likely conclusion from the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation,[3] although not all usages of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.[4][5] In the 1990s, as computing power grew, the fields of law,[6] computer science, and artificial intelligence research[7] spurred renewed interest in the subject of abduction.[8] Diagnostic expert systems frequently employ abduction.[9]
I contrast, SEP on Inductive Logic:
Inductive Logic First published Mon Sep 6, 2004; substantive revision Mon Mar 19, 2018 An inductive logic is a logic of evidential support. In a deductive logic, the premises of a valid deductive argument logically entail the conclusion, where logical entailment means that every logically possible state of affairs that makes the premises true must make the conclusion true as well. Thus, the premises of a valid deductive argument provide total support for the conclusion. [--> But where do you get your premises from? ] An inductive logic extends this idea to weaker arguments. In a good inductive argument, the truth of the premises provides some degree of support for the truth of the conclusion, where this degree-of-support might be measured via some numerical scale. By analogy with the notion of deductive entailment, the notion of inductive degree-of-support might mean something like this: among the logically possible states of affairs that make the premises true, the conclusion must be true in (at least) proportion r of them—where r is some numerical measure of the support strength. If a logic of good inductive arguments is to be of any real value, the measure of support it articulates should be up to the task. Presumably, the logic should at least satisfy the following condition: Criterion of Adequacy (CoA): The logic should make it likely (as a matter of logic) that as evidence accumulates, the total body of true evidence claims will eventually come to indicate, via the logic’s measure of support, that false hypotheses are probably false and that true hypotheses are probably true. The CoA stated here may strike some readers as surprisingly strong.
That is, in the modern sense, where we deal with less than certain knowledge claims and warrant, inductive reasoning is the logic of support, pointing to degree of warrant. This allows for empirical evidence to build up bodies of responsibly warranted, credibly true and reliable beliefs without getting stuck in the peculiarities of deduction, e.g. a deductive system, strictly, is a closed circle determined by its axioms, a logic-model world often without strict access to the world of experience. In this context, inference to the best explanation is a type of inductive reasoning that moves beyond suggesting possible world-frameworks, to evaluating alternatives on existing and predicted evidence [hence, reliability], on coherence and explanatory power . . . neither an ad hoc patchwork nor a simplistic narrative without good fit, while being as simple as reasonably possible. Applied to worldviews, the method of comparative difficulties emerges, where the subject matter is now global across our experienced world, other possible worlds and reality as a whole. Relevant to this thread, the listed first duties of reason are inescapable and antecedent to cases of reasoning, so we have good reason to hold them inescapably, self-evidently true. The one who attempts to object invariably finds her-/him-self appealing to what s/he would deny, which is immediately absurd. And after hundreds of comments, that still stands. The onward challenge is to extend to community, governance, law and government. It turns out that that is effectively a natural law frame, with core law being intelligible, rational, coeval with our humanity, universal, pivoting on the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Such frames of thought were pivotal to democratisation and the creation of modern constitutional democracy with its unprecedented achievement of liberty under just law with accountability of the powers of state and considerable stability energising an economy of free innovation. But prosperity historically leads to decadence and decadence to the return of lawless oligarchy. Which threatens us now. At worldviews level, it is profitable to ask, on comparative difficulties, what best explains such a world, across the broad, live options: ethical theism, evolutionary materialistic scientism, pantheism. Each of those is a grand-scale world explanation from the roots, each answers the problem of the one and the many in a different way, and each therefore faces one aspect of such diversity from a different view, the is-ought gap. post Hume and post Euthyphro, given the challenge of causally successive traversal of the transfinite in finite causally cumulative stages. The bill of requisites is seen as the inherently good and utterly wise at world root. In particular, though dominant in major western institutions, evolutionary materialistic scientism [embracing fellow travellers] cannot account for credible mind or ground moral government save on force and grand delusion, so it fails. The real issue is between the other two, where of these, monism of the spirit in effect is challenged to address diversity. If you dispute that, put up an alternative _____ and address comparative difficulties ______ . KF kairosfocus
F/N: Since Apologetics seems to be being made into a whipping boy, I will spare a few thoughts on yet another toxic distractor. In particular, the implied accusation of question-begging closed mindedness will be answered. 23 So on the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp, and they entered the audience hall with the military tribunes and the prominent men of the city. Then, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. In Greco-Roman legal praxis, the accused was given an occasion to apo + logia, speak off the charges. This was the chance for a potentially innocent person to reply to and break the force of accusations, especially if they were malicious. A capital example is found in Ac 25 - 26:
Ac 25:1 Now three days after Festus had arrived in the province, he went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. 2 And the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews laid out their case against Paul, and they urged him, 3 asking as a favor against Paul[a] that he summon him to Jerusalem—because they were planning an ambush to kill him on the way. 4 Festus replied that Paul was being kept at Caesarea and that he himself intended to go there shortly. 5 “So,” said he, “let the men of authority among you go down with me, and if there is anything wrong about the man, let them bring charges against him.” . . . . 13 Now when some days had passed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea and greeted Festus. 14 And as they stayed there many days, Festus laid Paul's case before the king, saying, “There is a man left prisoner by Felix, 15 and when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews laid out their case against him, asking for a sentence of condemnation against him. 16 I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met the accusers face to face and had opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge laid against him. [--> the defense here is of course the apologia] 17 So when they came together here, I made no delay, but on the next day took my seat on the tribunal and ordered the man to be brought. 18 When the accusers stood up, they brought no charge in his case of such evils as I supposed. 19 Rather they had certain points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive. 20 Being at a loss how to investigate these questions, I asked whether he wanted to go to Jerusalem and be tried there regarding them. 21 But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to Caesar.” 22 Then Agrippa said to Festus, “I would like to hear the man myself.” “Tomorrow,” said he, “you will hear him.” 23 So on the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp, and they entered the audience hall with the military tribunes and the prominent men of the city. Then, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in . . .
After preliminaries, Paul speaks, cutting across the plausibility structures of the then prevalent worldviews:
Ac 26:1 . . . Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” Then Paul stretched out his hand and made his defense: 2 “I consider myself fortunate that it is before you, King Agrippa, I am going to make my defense today against all the accusations of the Jews, 3 especially because you are familiar with all the customs and controversies of the Jews. Therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently. 4 “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and in Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. 5 They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee. 6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, 7 to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king! 8 Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead? [of course, he is speaking as one of 500+ eyewitnesses, the majority then -- AD 59 -- still being alive] . . . . [I skip further details] . . . 24 And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.” [--> Plausibility structures violated, he can only imagine this obviously learned and eloquent, patently innocent man has gone insane] 25 But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. 26 For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. [--> a few dozen miles away, in the capital of the Jewish nation, within eyewitness lifetime . . . do you recall 1991 - 2 . . . with most of 500+ euewitnesses alive?] 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” 28 And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?”[b] 29 And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.” 30 Then the king rose, and the governor and Bernice and those who were sitting with them. 31 And when they had withdrawn, they said to one another, “This man is doing nothing to deserve death or imprisonment.” 32 And Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.”
So, Apologetics is in context, the innocent man's confident reply to false charges of error, fraud or some other infamous crime. There is nothing particularly suspicious about that, and there is nothing particularly suspicious about studying how to prepare a defense against likely accusations and claimed incriminating evidence, indeed in sound legal systems there is a right of discovery and a duty of prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence they may have or find. Save, to those who have convinced themselves that the man MUST be guilty, utterly stupid or mad. As in Dawkins' infamous ignorant, insane or wicked. However, we are not going there, we are looking at self evident inescapables of reason and asking what sort of world is like that. KF kairosfocus
Jerry (attn VL & WJM), I am still busy here but will pause. Actually, what provoked my chain of thought is Cicero, in De Legibus. Especially, the received wisdom c 50 BC, "[l]aw (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary." Then "They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones." I long noted the earnest tone in Logic 101 textbooks, especially as they address fallacies, particularly those that are of plainly manipulative intent. In reflecting, I began to see and take note of the inescapability, extending Epictetus in his Discourses on Logic. [I first met that case 40+ years ago in a compulsory Logic 101+ class we used to openly deride as Useless English; long run, one of the most useful courses I ever did! Not excepting the related Math and Digital Electronics courses that followed.] The force of built in law coeval -- that's Blackstone's contribution -- with our rational, responsible, self-moved [Plato, The Law, Bk X see Derek Smith's two tier controller cybernetic loop and that's Control systems peeking in], reflexive nature that pivots on requisites of justice and uprightness then had synthetic impact in reflecting on sustainability [that's Bruntland etc with echoes of Kant with side-orders of Golden Rule] thence sound cultural, governance, government and legal reform vs radical revolution. Yes, the Christians are there, as in fact the Christian faith rather explicitly endorses core natural law principles and reasoning in foundational documents coming from key figures. But the frame is not deduced from the Gospel or the a priori assumption of the God of Ethical Theism, a Philosophical concept of the source and sustainer of reality that is related to but not dependent on Systematic or Biblical Theology. The frame pivots on recognising self evidence of certain asserted first duties as describing accurately the states of affairs relating to built in principles of regulation of responsible, rational freedom. First moral duties of reason that are first truths antecedent to acts of reasoning including proofs and other forms of warrant. They cannot be proved as proofs are found to inescapably build them in. Epictetus on logic is a paradigmatic case. We may then reasonably ask, what sort of world is like that, on a grand inference to best explanation basis. KF kairosfocus
William J Murray The inherent problem with Christian philosopher’s reasoning (apologetics) is that they are trying to reach a pre-determined conclusion. IOW, they are trying to justify a doctrine they already hold as true.
:) Hahahaha . So if someone thinks x is true he shouldn't try to demonstrate that x is true ,he should just advocates for opposite ideeas as being true ? Deep thinking .
Viola Lee Buddhism doesn’t believe in a creator God, and neither does Taoism. Hinduism has two main branches, one which does and one which doesn’t.
So what. This is supposed to be an argument? Your argumentation is "geographic" not logical. It would be logical if you would have told us why buddhism ,etc. is true and christianity false but you never will do that. Truth is very exclusivist and is only one, while inclusiveness is nice and make you feel virtuous . But what means inclusiveness in falsehood? :) Sandy
Jerry/758
Natural law has a long history of logic and reasoning examining the evidence to the best explanation. It is not just Christians.
No, it's not but that may just be because most humans have a strong interest in their own survival which will include looking for anything or anyone that may have the power to further that interest. That does not necessarily mean that there is such a thing or such a being.
The evidence is overwhelming that there was a creator. One can then look at the nature of the creation to come to additional conclusions about the nature of this creator.
The origins of life, the Universe and everything are a deep mystery. A creator deity cannot be ruled out as an explanation but neither do I find the evidence offered for such a being to be compelling. The evidence from the Old Testament, for example, speaks against the Christian concept of an utterly wise, good and loving foundation of all creation.
It will only tell you some aspects of the creation, but far from all. For example, humans are born with an intense desire to be free. That is built in and since humans are the highest order of the creation, that will tell you something about what the creator wanted.
As I see it, human beings - although not just human beings - are born first and foremost with an intense desire to survive. Questions about free will are very much a secondary consideration.
That is built in and since humans are the highest order of the creation, that will tell you something about what the creator wanted.
I have to say I find any form of exceptionalism to be both alarming and dangerous. We have plenty of evidence from history of how much harm people can do when they come to believe such things. We are polluting the air and filling the land and oceans with our waste, We have driven an uncounted number of species to extinction and pose an existential threat to still more. We may be precipitating a change in the Earth's climate that could have devastating effects for us all. If that is what is meant by being the "highest order of Creation" then perhaps the planet would be better off without such an order. It certainly calls into question the judgement and purposes of any proposed Creator. Seversky
Jerry writes, "but no one in history doubted there was a creator." If by creator you mean a purposeful, active, mindful agent–a deity–then I don't think that is true. Buddhism doesn't believe in a creator God, and neither does Taoism. Hinduism has two main branches, one which does and one which doesn't. Monotheistic theism, including natural law which is included at times, is part of the Western Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, but it doesn't extend to all the world's religions or philosophies. Viola Lee
Of course we do
No you don’t. Natural law has nothing to do with a specific religion nor a specific theology. It assumes a creator but that is all. Even that is not necessary but no one in history doubted there was a creator. It then looks at the nature of the various creations and observes what seems to be governing each. It could be any type of creator. It is the various species that are of interest. You can then go further and infer something about the creator by analysis of the creations. All the natural law advocates missed a major characteristic of humans by failing to note the importance of individual freedom. jerry
Jerry said:
You do not know that.
Of course we do. Apologetics begins its reasoning with the conclusion; that conclusion is necessarily presumed true by faith. That's not really in question here; it's the nature of apologetics. That doesn't make the conclusion false nor does it make the logic necessarily bad; it just means you've started at a conclusion by faith you are deliberately trying to justify via reason. Perhaps it can be done, perhaps not, but saying "lots of smart people have thought about this and have reached the same conclusion" doesn't help make your or KF's case one bit here. William J Murray
re 757: Exactly. Viola Lee
But it is a conclusion of faith, not inescapable logic.
You do not know that. Natural law has a long history of logic and reasoning examining the evidence to the best explanation. It is not just Christians. The evidence is overwhelming that there was a creator. One can then look at the nature of the creation to come to additional conclusions about the nature of this creator. It will only tell you some aspects of the creation, but far from all. For example, humans are born with an intense desire to be free. That is built in and since humans are the highest order of the creation, that will tell you something about what the creator wanted. jerry
The inherent problem with Christian philosopher's reasoning (apologetics) is that they are trying to reach a pre-determined conclusion. IOW, they are trying to justify a doctrine they already hold as true. William J Murray
KF said:
Specifically, we become immediately, intuitively aware of duties to sound conscience, to neighbour and to justice. Reflecting on these, we see their inescapability, centrality to responsible reason and action, indeed that they bridge to duties to truth, right reason and prudence.
There’s the missing premise: conscience. We’ve agreed that our other first duties have, and can be recognized as such by, certain qualities: at the fundamental level, they are existentially necessary and cannot be avoided. If we have a first duty to conscience, what is the fundamental aspect of conscience that is existentially necessary and cannot be avoided? William J Murray
VL, why do you twist what I have said into a strawman? i have pointed to seven first duties of reason that you yourself show to be inescapable, even in the objection you made just now, by calling a challenge to inference to best explanation at worldviews level a leap, i.e. a question-begging non sequitur. The seven inescapable (and so self-evident) first duties set a framework for recognising moral government and how it pivots on key first moral truths. TRUTHS THAT ARE OBJECTIVE BECAUSE THEY ARE INESCAPABLE AND SO SELF-EVIDENT. That is enough to begin to reframe how we deal with moral issues and law, so governance and government. Those are big already. Beyond, it is perfectly in order to ask, what sort of world can have in it morally governed, responsible rational freedom and exert a comparative difficulties, inference to best explanation challenge. Which is precisely the opposite of question begging, if you have a serious candidate world root that is capable of founding worlds such as we experience and of bearing the weight of ought, kindly put it on the table ______ . The candidate I have put up to fill the bill is inherently good and utterly wise, answering Hume and Euthyphro, is necessary being creator, answering to founder and sustainer of worlds. Maximally great in context of necessary implies eternal, supreme, utterly wise, utterly good, utterly powerful. Such will fill the bill of requisites. If you have a serious alternative, suggest it ________ and explain in outline why you think it is adequate _____ KF kairosfocus
Of course Christian philosophers come to that conclusion, as does KF. But it is a conclusion of faith, not inescapable logic. Viola Lee
his standard string of assertions is to the existence of a maximally good, beneficent root of reality, i.e., God. I do not find that an inescapable conclusion.
Nearly all the Christian philosophers came to that conclusion which you reject. I am currently reading Steven Nadler’s “Best of All Possible Worlds.” Incredibly clear writer. He has a chapter titled Eternal Truths and in it he discusses this very topic. Their conclusion was God is omnipotent but cannot do things against His nature. He cannot do something immoral. In other words God is bound by His nature or shall we say by a natural law. Aside: Galileo and Descartes were contemporaries and just preceded Leibniz Never knew or thought of this before. Galileo - 1564 - 1642 Descartes - 1596 - 1650 Leibniz - 1646 - 1716 Newton - 1642 - 1726 jerry
"I have met people who exaggerate the differences[of morality], because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did – if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house." CSLewis Lieutenant Commander Data
Yes, the really big jump KF does in his standard string of assertions is to the existence of a maximally good, beneficent root of reality, i.e., God. I do not find that an inescapable conclusion. Viola Lee
Yes, the really big jump KF does in his standard string of assertions is to the existence of a maximally good, beneficent root of reality, i.e., God. I do not find that an inescapable conclusion. Viola Lee
Sandy:
There is NOT such a thing as a-moral conclusion in areas that many disagree . People disagree because they think they know better ,this means they think their reasoning is superior
Compared to their own premises. It's a given that people reason from their own premises. But what about when premises differ? The fact that people have differing moral premises at all is a result of there being no evidence for an objective morality with which all can agree. Concealed Citizen
WJM, it does not change my logic, or the need to disentangle the equivocation. KF kairosfocus
KF said:
18: One’s inclinations and impulses often are in contradiction to counsels of sober prudence.
That does not change the logic, KF. P_1 cannot be defined both as the choice you actually make AND the best choice, because - under your worldview - we do not always make the best choice. You can't have it both ways. P_1, under your worldview, is always the best moral choice whether we choose it or not. That, and that alone, is what defines P_1. P__2, under your worldview, is always the not-best choice option(so), whether chooses the or not.
20: not at all. And BTW, here, you appeal to duties to right reason rather directly.
We've already agreed to this arguendo. This doesn't change the fact that P_1 does not always meet both conditions of (1) the choice one actually makes, and (2) the best choice (under your own worldview, which states that actual immoral choices are possible.) An appeal to 3,000 years of history and decades of study can't change that logic; all it can do is confuse what is absolutely clear. However, this part of our argument is something we can get past by my simply agreeing to your definitions of preference arguendo. Let's just move on then and not belabor this point.
Historically and all around us, no. That is there is a key, missing word, one that leaps out by omission in a context of DUTY: “we [SHOULD] evaluate our non-trivial options according to some system of thought”.
Straw man response. I wasn't stating what peopleshould do; I was stating what people necessarily do. I was making your case for you under your paradigm that necessary behavior indicates a moral duty to proper behavior. Now, we get to the answer I've been looking for:
Specifically, we become immediately, intuitively aware of duties to sound conscience, to neighbour and to justice. Reflecting on these, we see their inescapability, centrality to responsible reason and action, indeed that they bridge to duties to truth, right reason and prudence.
There's the missing premise: conscience. We've agreed that our other first duties have, and can be recognized as such by, certain qualities: at the fundamental level, they are existentially necessary and cannot be avoided. If we have a first duty to conscience, what is the fundamental aspect of conscience that is existentially necessary and cannot be avoided? William J Murray
Sandy, we are seeing where our civilisation has reached, through unravelling the fabric of sound moral principles and linked right reason. KF kairosfocus
PS: Kindly note the substantial argument I excerpt in a nutshell:
Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.
kairosfocus
Jerry, I clipped another expert, in a summary from a standard textbook. Pardon, my citation as will follow. KF kairosfocus
WJM, 716: I excerpt and comment, as things strike my eye: >>I appreciate your recognition of preference as being an intrinsic aspect of our free will!>> 1: Such was never in dispute, e.g. note the definition of justice as due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities/duties. 2: More fundamentally, we are morally governed creatures, precisely because we are capable of freedom, identifying better and worse options and choosing, which implies the duty towards the good, especially where the welfare of others of like nature is at stake. 3: Without such freedom, our ability to reason freely and responsibly becomes dubious, undermining credibility of our claimed knowledge, judgements and arguments. 4: For striking example the tendency to imagine the brain as simply a blind force, evolutionarily shaped computational substrate leads to the GIGO constrained, dynamic-stochastic computational view, which utterly undermines claims to rationality. For example, note the implicit self-referential discredit in Sir Francis Crick's The Astonishing Hypothesis, 1994:
. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
5: The late Philip Johnson has aptly replied that Sir Francis should have therefore been willing to preface his works thusly: "I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." Johnson then acidly commented: “[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” [Reason in the Balance, 1995.] 6: While, obviously, there are various other worldviews on the table, this speaks to the dominant evolutionary materialistic scientism of recent generations and shows its fundamental intellectual bankruptcy. 7: Which also leads to its moral failure as it has in it no is capable of bearing the weight of ought, but then projects its failings to other views using the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument. 8: In recent years, informed scientific materialists have avoided arguments from evil to atheism, in key part due to the impact of Plantinga's free will defense. Which, of course, is further background on why freedom is not in debate, or the impact of ability to choose and prefer, tempered by ability to choose against even the strongest inclinations. 9: Here, note my distinction: " . . . regarding the gap between the is a self-moved, significantly free agent eventuates and the ought that it would have been better to eventuate. (That is, we must distinguish two senses: preference_1, whatever one actually chooses; from preference_2, what one is inclined or even tempted to choose.)" >>you say that the difference between P_1 and P_2 is the difference between what one actually chooses and the other options that were on the table before the choice; then you say that the difference between P_1 and P_2 is which one is the “better” choice.>> 10: Rather, I distinguish two important but different senses of preference, to avert an error of ambiguity and conflation. That we are inclined to choice-option j but find on free reflection that i instead is better, more beneficial per say Kant's Categorical Imperative, may lead us to choose against very strong inclinations, towards the path of virtue. Indeed, from 1,000 BC on in what became the Western Philosophical tradition, wisdom in key part is about discerning the right from what our uninstructed or morally warped inclinations would lead us to prefer, see Proverbs 1 - 10, originally a guide to the young crown prince. >>So, you are defining the difference thusly; P_1 is the better option to P_2. I assume you mean whether one actually chooses P_1 or not, it is the better choice.>> 11: I am highlighting duties of prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, fairness and justice, informed by discerning the difference between inclination and what is morally sound and responsibly warranted as good: mutually or generally beneficial, sustainable/feasible of universalisation in the Kantian sense, virtuous, noble, in accord with fulfillment of evident and appropriate ends in accord with the range of first duties of reason and the like. >> You’re saying that there is a categorical difference between P_1 and not-P_1 because P_1 is the better choice whether one chooses it or not.>> 12: I am highlighting the massively obvious fact that ought and inclinations do not uniformly align, so there is no sound first duty to act toward one's inclinations, but instead we need to ponder self-harm [e.g. by gluttony or a tobacco habit or drink to excess or unbridled rage, greed, ambition, pride or lust etc] and harm to others of like being, neighbour. 13: that is why I wrote: "One’s preferences, desires, tastes etc may lead one to prefer and choose the wrong per preference_2, i.e. the error, the sub optimal, the foolish, the naive, the simplistic, the fallacious etc." This should in fact be obvious, as simply part of growing up. >> it is clear here that you are attempting to place the category of “available options” under the “preference” label because it is the only way to salvage your worldview>> 14: There is no shipwreck of a failed worldview to be salvaged here. I am speaking to the commonplaces of morally responsible life and growing up, for creatures like us who are finite, fallible, error-prone, morally struggling, often stubborn and sometimes ill-willed. >> after admitting (and good on you for that!) that free will, when it comes to actually instantiating choices, is always about preference.>> 15: It seems the equivocation I warned against is at work. What we are inclined to prefer is not necessarily what we ought to choose [did your parents counsel you on choice of a life partner that infatuation, lust, love and sound choice are very different?]. This should not have to be belaboured. 16: My onward point is that by moral discernment and discipline informed by the first duties, we cultivate the prudence to see and the habitual decision towards virtue, soundness and wisdom so that our choices reflect a deeper decision to live by wisdom not by inclinations or worse, impulses. 17: Every time we go into a modern shop, we will see impulse items right next to the cashier, a reflection in retail management of that dilemma. Observe, next time, how many of these items are unhealthy or unwise. >>However, P_1 cannot have both of these essential qualities that you have “clarified” it as having: (1) what one actually chooses, and (2) the “better” choice whether one actually chooses it or not because those two things would often be in contradiction to each other,>> 18: One's inclinations and impulses often are in contradiction to counsels of sober prudence. Let me excerpt from Prov 1, the speech of Sophia, Wisdom personified, in a 3,000 year old warning to youth:
Prov 1:20 Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the markets she raises her voice; 21 at the head of the noisy streets she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks: 22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? 23 If you turn at my reproof,[a] behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you. 24 Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, 25 because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof, 26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you, 27 when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. 28 Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently but will not find me. 29 Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord, 30 would have none of my counsel and despised all my reproof, 31 therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices. 32 For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacency of fools destroys them; 33 but whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.” [ESV]
>>unless it was impossible to actually choose the “not-better” option. IOW, unless the “better” option is by definition the actual choice one makes,>> 19: I have explicitly pointed out and emphasised that we can and do too often eventuate an IS that is not in accord with OUGHT. This, through intemperate, impulsive, ill advised, naive, foolish, wrongful, harmful or outright wicked choice. Things that are so well known that they should not have to be belaboured. >>your definition of the qualities of P_1 is potentially self-contradictory.>> 20: not at all. And BTW, here, you appeal to duties to right reason rather directly. 21: Let us bring forward: ". . . regarding the gap between the is a self-moved, significantly free agent eventuates and the ought that it would have been better to eventuate. (That is, we must distinguish two senses: preference_1, whatever one actually chooses; from preference_2, what one is inclined or even tempted to choose.)" 22: Patently, what one chooses may well be what one is so inclined, but that may often be unsound. Moral discipline and the disciplines of wisdom and virtue lead us to study and practice to choose in accord with what is morally and intellectually sound, cultivating habits of sound counsel, prudence, wisdom and virtue. 23: Eventually, one may acquire as a cultivated taste, a preference for these, but that is normally a struggle and with some things one may face a lifetime discipline of choosing the right over what one may be almost overwhelmingly inclined to do. 24: Thus, there is no self-contradiction, just 3,000+ years of hard-bought lessons. I am of course particularly influenced by my study of history and its lessons and by the study of economics and policymaking towards sustainable solutions. Marches of folly in defiance of sound counsel are a glaring fact of history and too often current events. 25: I am of course also aware of the personal dimensions of such. >>The rest of your comment makes this clear; under your definitional distinction, P_1 exists whether one choose it or not. You are essentially making the case that what one should prefer is that decision one arrives at by utilizing our other first duty moral obligations (to fundamental truth statements and fundamental logic.)>> 26: Yes, what we ought to do is often accessible if one is willing to reflect soberly and choose per sound first duties. There are of course other cases where the best or at least better choice is by no means particularly clear, even after filtering, and one is then well advised to seek to minimise risk of adverse outcomes. In some circumstances, things are so dire that one must hazard an outright gamble as a chance of success is better than certainty of disaster or worse disaster. >>However, no decision I make can avoid employing those existentially necessary first duties. All decisions require them at the basic level necessary to make any decision whatsoever.>> 27: The duties are involved and are binding, that their counsel will be heeded is no guarantee. >>Under the principle of charity and best interpretation,>> 28: The matter was never so muddy as you suggest, the very framework of first duties and the gap between what we too often do vs should have done, makes that plain. >> I think your argument is that my [--> our] preference should be that which is concluded the best choice by use of application of true statements and right reason>> 29: As well as first and onward duties etc. 30: Thus far, yes, we have a duty to think, choose, speak and act aright, elaborated on terms as already outlined from the OP on. >> well beyond that which is existentially necessary and cannot be avoided.>> 31: A strawmannish imposition. >>I’m going to continue to do something you never afforded me in our MRT discussion;>> 32: I have not taken up any strong, sustained evaluation, not only because I have had other things on my table by force of events but because I have been disinclined to have a major exchange absent prior context that would be conducive to a comparative difficulties exercise. This exchange brings out some of why. >> I’m going to agree to your definitions arguendo and I’m even going to strengthen your argument for you, because I’m not interested in defending my worldview here; I come here to have it challenged by making it available to criticism.>> 33: Admirable. >>It is obvious that we evaluate our non-trivial options according to some system of thought even if it is resigning our choices to flipping a coin because one believes in fate or whatever.>> 34: Historically and all around us, no. That is there is a key, missing word, one that leaps out by omission in a context of DUTY: "we [SHOULD] evaluate our non-trivial options according to some system of thought". 35: Beyond, the material question is, by what system and why. Coin flipping generally does not meet that test. >> I’m going to accept arguendo that the way we should arrange our preferences (the way we should prefer to prefer, LOL ? ) is via right reason.>> 36: Again, duties to right reason as a part of the first duties in general. >>I think we agree that right reason would require that we understand the essential nature of our existence>> 37: Only insofar as recognising that we are rational, responsible, significantly free creatures with certain inescapable thus self-evident first duties. Worldviews choice is an exceedingly difficult and advanced subject that is a culmination of a civilisation level reflection, not a first step in choosing aright starting with not raiding the cookie jar. >> or else we cannot have hope, other than sheer luck, that any of our decisions are the “best” we can make in any given situation.>> 38: A narrower focus on accessible options, identification of the handful of better choices then best alternatives leading to opportunity cost, is well established in decision theory and policy-making. (See 555 above.) >> IOW, we cannot have confidence about the quality of our preferential decisions unless we are also confident we are reasoning from fundamental premises we can be confident in.>> 39: Inescapable, self-evident first duties are relevant fundamental premises that do not require running before one learns to crawl. >>We are in complete agreement about some fundamental aspects of our existence (truth statements at least in the form of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction,) the absolute nature of math and geometry, or what I call the principle of order, and that all experience occurs in mind regardless of where the information for that experience comes from.>> 40: I would modify significantly, given this forum. 41: Core first principles of reason are self evident. Distinct identity warrants a core of Mathematics as fabric to any possible world, including that we can identify an abstract Euclidean geometric space. our experience is conscious, subjective and mental, but we are able to warrant certain claims beyond dependence on the fallible perceptions etc of a given individual, group, community, civilisation or era. >>However, I don’t see any logically coherent pathway from those agreed premises that makes the following statement true:>> 42: You have suppressed the broader span of first duties, which are also inescapable and self-evident. >> torturing innocent children for personal pleasure is wrong.>> 43: I chose an unfortunately real, specific incident that shocks the conscience and leads to community outcry. In the actual case, I had just sat down to dinner when someone I regularly ate dinner with over philosophical etc discussion walked in and said , XYZ's child is missing and people are beginning to search. I decided to finish my dinner and join the search. Soon thereafter, as I was about to do so, my friend returned to report discovery of the body, about 1/2 mile away along the right of way for a water aqueduct, in some bushes. That obviously meant that as he set out to join the search, word had spread on the grim discovery on a path that joins the Campus to a nearby community where the child's school was located . . . the child lived on campus behind the cafeteria where I was getting my dinner after a day of troubleshooting in the lab (which is why I had not heard before). The criminal was never detected or prosecuted, as I followed up with XYZ over about 20 years until I left that land for good. 44: Specific, real world incident is important as it is concrete and confronts us with facts of our morally governed nature. Specifically, we become immediately, intuitively aware of duties to sound conscience, to neighbour and to justice. Reflecting on these, we see their inescapability, centrality to responsible reason and action, indeed that they bridge to duties to truth, right reason and prudence. 45: That is, inductive reflection is pivotal, making us aware of principles embedded in real world situations. Further reflection shows systematic ordering and joint inescapability. >> If you can make that case from those premises,>> 46: You truncated the list and abstracted from existential encounter with evil that likely walked the same campus as a student who likely did not look somehow branded with a peculiar mark of evil. We may have brushed shoulders with a stalker, kidnapper, rapist, torturer and murderer day by day as we went about our business. Perhaps, in the very same cafeteria (as that child regularly visited the cafeteria to do chores for its father). >> please do. If your case for that requires an additional existential premise, then let us hear it and discuss it.>> 47: Note my response as given. KF kairosfocus
Concealed Citizen The conclusion about morality is itself not a relative conclusion. It is an a-moral conclusion.
There is NOT such a thing as a-moral conclusion in areas that many disagree . People disagree because they think they know better ,this means they think their reasoning is superior (!), this means they think is a hierarchy (!)of true vs false conclusions and their conclusion rank better. Better comparing with what :))) if there is no objective morality. PS: the funniest contradiction (besides being a self-defeating statement ) is that a true relative morality(meaning no objective morality ) would run under the radar for our reason, would be practically invisible; a relative morality can't be detected by reason because in order to be detected have to exist that "magic" reference point(objective morality) to which you compare and reach the conclusion "is relative". Sandy
the self-referential failure of your list has already been addressed save for skepticism. Global skepticism on knowledge is self defeating, claiming to know enough to doubt possibility of knowledge. Selective skepticism is largely self-serving and in this case flies in the face of the inescapable, so inescapably true. And more.
Take it up with the author who is an expert on the topic. He is not advocating any of them but pointing out how objections are categorized. jerry
Pardon, an especially busy day, later . . . PS: Jerry, the self-referential failure of your list has already been addressed save for skepticism. Global skepticism on knowledge is self defeating, claiming to know enough to doubt possibility of knowledge. Selective skepticism is largely self-serving and in this case flies in the face of the inescapable, so inescapably true. And more. kairosfocus
Sandy, "Moral law is relative a relative statement" is a conclusion about the existence (or not) of a thing based on the existence (or not) of objective evidence. (Although the better question is whether an objective morality exists.) The conclusion about morality is itself not a relative conclusion. It is an a-moral conclusion. Just like concluding that the earth is spherical or flat, or whether or not fairies exist, is an a-moral conclusion. If someone could provide evidence of an objective morality, then the question would be answered definitely. But the conclusion is still an a-moral conclusion based on evidence. If there was evidence for an objective morality, even a sociopath would be compelled to acknowledge it, even though he may not care about obeying it. Concealed Citizen
Concealed Citizen
Sandy: 1)”Moral law is objective” is an OBJECTIVE statement 2)”Moral law is relative” is an OBJECTIVE statement .
1) “Fairies exist” is an objective statement. 2) “Fairies don’t exist” is an objective statement.
“Moral law is relative” IS an RELATIVE statement itself
Um, no. It’s an objective observation based on all available evidence.
:) I'm sure you can do a better job than that. I rephrase special for you 1)”Moral law is objective” is an OBJECTIVE statement from point of view of person who support this statement 2)”Moral law is relative” is an OBJECTIVE statement from point of view of person who support this statement Unfortunately(for some) simple logic dismantle 2nd statement as self-defeating. Other identical self-defeating statements: There is no truth. Truth can't be known. What's true for you, isn't true for me" Answer: Is that true? "You should not judge" Answer: Isn't this a judgment? "You should be tolerant of view not your own" Answer:Shouldn't you be tolerant with the view you said that should be tolerant to other views? PS: Do you know someone who argue about fairies? I don't know a single person who doesn't have a strong opinion about morality. I just want to fact-check the relevance of your argument "morality-fairies" ;) Sandy
I mention in the previous comment that I thought I had published the definitions of objections to natural law. They were in the comments deleted by Word Press two weeks ago. jerry
sure everyone is not using the word “objective” to mean the same thing here.
Using words with different definitions or vague definitions is common on this site. That is an objective truth. People also read minds here too. I thought I had posted this but cannot find it above. Important objections to natural law theory that includes some definitions.
A. Relativism - especially in the form of cultural relativism - prefers to see ethics as merely customary and regional rather than normative or universal. In fact, morality comes from the Latin term mores, which means “customs.” B. Subjectivism - particularly in modern life - denies that there are objective moral standards and urges that values need to be embraced and chosen by individuals. We find these ideas in the modern period with Nietzsche and in the ancient period in Plato’s Gorgias. C. Skepticism - considered specifically with regard to morals offers theoretical objections to the very possibility of knowing universal moral truths.
jerry
I think the problem here is that KF & Sandy hold that "making true statements" is an inherently moral obligation, therefore making any claim of objective fact or truth is itself a moral statement. So, "morality is subjective" becomes a statement that appeals to objective morality just by making a objective truth claim. Personally, I've stopped trying to argue about that, and just agreed to the premise arguendo to see if that gets me anywhere interesting. I don't see how the premises agreed on to date can get to "It's wrong to cause others pain for personal pleasure." Something's missing. William J Murray
I'm pretty sure everyone is not using the word "objective" to mean the same thing here. I believe that is an objectively true statement, for some meaning of objective (although not for others.) Viola Lee
Sandy:
1)”Moral law is objective” is an OBJECTIVE statement 2)”Moral law is relative” is an OBJECTIVE statement .
1) "Fairies exist" is an objective statement. 2) "Fairies don't exist" is an objective statement.
“Moral law is relative” IS an RELATIVE statement itself
Um, no. It's an objective observation based on all available evidence. Concealed Citizen
Sandy, yes, well summarised. KF kairosfocus
Yep, ALL moral positions are inescapably OBJECTIVE. :))) 1)"Moral law is objective" is an OBJECTIVE statement 2)"Moral law is relative" is an OBJECTIVE statement . 1) self-reference is congruent (claim from message AND message itself return: objective) 2)self-referential analysis return a contradiction( if claim "relative" about morality is true then if applied to message itself that is a moral claim then must be "relative" : "Moral law is relative" IS an RELATIVE statement itself ,therefore just lost the right to claim that is "more" true than any other statement about morality. ;) Sandy
WJM, later, again. KF kairosfocus
Data, welcome aboard, and yes you are patently correct. It is hard to swim against the tide of a given day. KF (I was tempted to sign off Jean-Luc.) PS: See why our civilisation is in deep trouble and why we need to sort some first principles out if we are to work our way out of a needless problematique? kairosfocus
F/N: Why popular views on morality that are often promoted as unassailable verities -- notice the self-referential incoherence -- fail:
Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.
I predict (please, let it be unsuccessfully) that this will make but little impression. But it is necessary for record. KF kairosfocus
VL, on self evident first principles there are correct answers, in this case, by inescapability. One of the errors of the popular relativism, subjectivism and emotivism of our day is the denial of such. Your own objection, again, appeals to said first duties, exemplifying what you wish to dismiss. For example ponder what it means to say, in effect that the correct answer on moral first principles is that there are no correct answers on moral first principles. See the problem? (And, that it is true that there are no objective moral truths is an objective truth claim on the substance of morality; accordingly it is a failed moral truth claim.) There are things that are just personal or community level tastes, preferences etc, but these are not like that. A good example of community differences is the Bajan delight in "Sea Eggs," short spine sea urchin roe, which they insist are delightful and I insist are an acquired taste, one I have no wish to entertain. I will admit the innards make good fish bait. I add, then there is the EC love of Mauby bark drinks, which are bitter. Here in MNI, there is even a saying, all froth and no Mauby. Another acquired taste. CS Lewis seemed to despise prunes (likely, due to association with a semi-medicinal use as say Lt Worf advertised) KF PS: I will again append a discussion on why relativism, subjectivism and emotivism fail. kairosfocus
Thanks. Viola Lee
VL @719, Points taken. William J Murray
Commander, I presume you read my further explanation at 719 - is that true? Viola Lee
Viola Lee And why do you persist in not seeing the main point. Yes people disagree. We agree on that. You, however, attribute that to some people just not getting the “correct” answer, implying that there is a correct answer. I maintain that there is no correct answer. Do you see the difference?
:) Well I knew you are omniscient otherwise you couldn't know that "there is no correct answer". Lieutenant Commander Data
I take it back. I would not think causing someone physical pain is wrong in all cases, such as in self-defense, so the qualifier about personal enjoyment is necessary, to me. But this is really between WJM and KF, so I apologize a bit for stepping in and perhaps muddying the waters. Viola Lee
The personal enjoyment part is unnecessary. My chosen belief is that deliberately causing someone physical pain is wrong. Viola Lee
I'm going to change my challenge to KF in the last paragraph of my comment at 716 because I think it gives KF room to sneak in a premise we have not agreed to yet. So: "However, I don’t see any logically coherent pathway from those agreed premises that makes the following statement true: deliberately causing someone physical pain for no reason other than my personal enjoyment is wrong. If you can make that case from those premises, please do. If your case for that requires an additional existential premise, then let us hear it and discuss it." "Torture" and "innocence" may intrinsically refer to premises that have yet to be established or agreed on. I think the example statement is just as clear without those pejorative references. William J Murray
WJM: two points. What I mean is that there are no objectively true moral positions on the vast raft of real-world moral issues that we confront. For instance, there is no "correct" position on divorce. The phrase "no correct answer" was in the implicit context of the question I have been asking KF: "if we use our rationality et al correctly will we all reach the same conclusion [regarding moral decisions], just as we do with questions such as what is 2 + 2." My answer to that question is, "No, there is no correct answer to moral questions. Morals are not like math in that regard." Second, whenever I make almost any statement, such as "there is no correct answer", I always mean that at the current time, taking everything into account that I think is relevant, my current provisional belief is ..., but I'm not going to preface everything I say with that disclaimer. Viola Lee
VL: Saying that "there is no correct answer" is itself the assertion of a correct answer. William J Murray
kf writes at 711:
VL, why do you insist on a strawman caricature? That people differ about moral decisions is no more problematic than that they differ on any other important matter. Even on self-evident truths, people will disagree; ideologically or personally driven clinging to an error or outright absurdity is a well known commonplace.
And why do you persist in not seeing the main point. Yes people disagree. We agree on that. You, however, attribute that to some people just not getting the "correct" answer, implying that there is a correct answer. I maintain that there is no correct answer. Do you see the difference? Viola Lee
KF, Hey, I appreciate your recognition of preference as being an intrinsic aspect of our free will! Maybe we can make some more headway here.
2: Trivially true, but not substantial regarding the gap between the is a self-moved, significantly free agent eventuates and the ought that it would have been better to eventuate. (That is, we must distinguish two senses: preference_1, whatever one actually chooses; from preference_2, what one is inclined or even tempted to choose.)
First you say that the difference between P_1 and P_2 is the difference between what one actually chooses and the other options that were on the table before the choice; then you say that the difference between P_1 and P_2 is which one is the "better" choice. To clarify, you say the following:
5: Yet again, trivially not in dispute, especially as regards preference_1. Preference_2, too easily conflated with preference_1 through a fallacy of equivocation, is another and material matter. [And yes, I am adjusting to clarify.]
So, you are defining the difference thusly; P_1 is the better option to P_2. I assume you mean whether one actually chooses P_1 or not, it is the better choice. You're saying that there is a categorical difference between P_1 and not-P_1 because P_1 is the better choice whether one chooses it or not. It is important to note that after writing the latter comment, you did not alter your first comment. That this was deliberate on your part to include both of these conditions on P_1 is demonstrated later when you say:
One’s preferences, desires, tastes etc may lead one to prefer and choose the wrong per preference_2, i.e. the error, the sub optimal, the foolish, the naive, the simplistic, the fallacious etc.
So, it is clear here that you are attempting to place the category of "available options" under the "preference" label because it is the only way to salvage your worldview after admitting (and good on you for that!) that free will, when it comes to actually instantiating choices, is always about preference. However, P_1 cannot have both of these essential qualities that you have "clarified" it as having: (1) what one actually chooses, and (2) the "better" choice whether one actually chooses it or not because those two things would often be in contradiction to each other, unless it was impossible to actually choose the "not-better" option. IOW, unless the "better" option is by definition the actual choice one makes, your definition of the qualities of P_1 is potentially self-contradictory. The rest of your comment makes this clear; under your definitional distinction, P_1 exists whether one choose it or not. You are essentially making the case that what one should prefer is that decision one arrives at by utilizing our other first duty moral obligations (to fundamental truth statements and fundamental logic.) However, no decision I make can avoid employing those existentially necessary first duties. All decisions require them at the basic level necessary to make any decision whatsoever. Under the principle of charity and best interpretation, I think your argument is that my preference should be that which is concluded the best choice by use of application of true statements and right reason well beyond that which is existentially necessary and cannot be avoided. I'm going to continue to do something you never afforded me in our MRT discussion; I'm going to agree to your definitions arguendo and I'm even going to strengthen your argument for you, because I'm not interested in defending my worldview here; I come here to have it challenged by making it available to criticism. It is obvious that we evaluate our non-trivial options according to some system of thought even if it is resigning our choices to flipping a coin because one believes in fate or whatever. I'm going to accept arguendo that the way we should arrange our preferences (the way we should prefer to prefer, LOL ;) ) is via right reason. I think we agree that right reason would require that we understand the essential nature of our existence or else we cannot have hope, other than sheer luck, that any of our decisions are the "best" we can make in any given situation. IOW, we cannot have confidence about the quality of our preferential decisions unless we are also confident we are reasoning from fundamental premises we can be confident in. We are in complete agreement about some fundamental aspects of our existence (truth statements at least in the form of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction,) the absolute nature of math and geometry, or what I call the principle of order, and that all experience occurs in mind regardless of where the information for that experience comes from. However, I don't see any logically coherent pathway from those agreed premises that makes the following statement true: torturing innocent children for personal pleasure is wrong. If you can make that case from those premises, please do. If your case for that requires an additional existential premise, then let us hear it and discuss it. William J Murray
if you can look at the case of a murder as described or the holocausts, genocides, democides etc of the past 100+ years and deny reality, intelligibility and meaningfulness of evil, in either the broad sense of privation of the good, or the narrower one of extreme wrong, then all I can do is duly note the fact of your personality.
Who has denied anything? I certainly haven’t. You act like I condone any of these things which you list when I never have. So why bring them up. Then you mention personality. Interesting. Why? I am after the clarification of the Judeo/Christian God which you seem to be oblivious too. I am defending Leibniz’s “the best of all possible worlds.” How could any Christian not defend Leibniz’s claim and still be a Christian? Define evil! Which you have not given anything coherent. We can start from there. Do it on one of the other threads so it doesn’t distract here. jerry
WJM, 679, on points: >>Free will is an inescapable aspect of the nature of our existence>> 1: Such is a point of agreement; absent freedom to choose, one cannot be rational. >>and, as you pointed out VL when I asked about it, free will inescapably means making choices according to one’s preference.>> 2: Trivially true, but not substantial regarding the gap between the is a self-moved, significantly free agent eventuates and the ought that it would have been better to eventuate. (That is, we must distinguish two senses: preference_1, whatever one actually chooses; from preference_2, what one is inclined or even tempted to choose.) >>That is as necessary as>> 3: And in itself as a narrow matter of preference_1, just as undisputed as 2 + 3 = 5. >> when KF says even when we deny truth or logic we are still appealing to it (you can’t speak coherently without it);>> 4: Again, trivially not in dispute. Your own argument seeks traction from appeals to first duties of reason. >> there is no denying that every free will choice is inescapably one of preference.>> 5: Yet again, trivially not in dispute, especially as regards preference_1. Preference_2, too easily conflated with preference_1 through a fallacy of equivocation, is another and material matter. [And yes, I am adjusting to clarify.] >>By KF’s logic, it is a moral first duty to make choices according to our preference>> 6: Non sequitur, with overtones of strawman pivoting on equivocation on the informal side. 7: One's preferences, desires, tastes etc may lead one to prefer and choose the wrong per preference_2, i.e. the error, the sub optimal, the foolish, the naive, the simplistic, the fallacious etc. 8: We are finite, fallible, error-prone, morally struggling, sometimes ignorant, sometimes in bondage to misperceptions, sometimes habituated or addicted, befuddled, blinded by rage etc, may be stubborn and ill willed. 9: Such factors for example indicate why we need to attend to duty to prudence, to right reason, to sound -- as opposed to unsound -- conscience [including damaged, benumbed or half dead or worse conscience], to fairness. That is, our unfiltered preferences are not a reliable guide to the ought and to duty. 10: Notoriously, even trivially, our choices may need to be in the teeth of our preferences in the non-trivial sense of what one is inclined to choose -- preference_2. This is why the lifetime discipline-based virtue, prudence, is the charioteer of the virtues:
One of the four cardinal virtues. Definitions of it are plentiful from Aristotle down. His "recta ratio agibilium" has the merits of brevity and inclusiveness. Father Rickaby aptly renders it as "right reason applied to practice". A fuller description and one more serviceable is this: an intellectual habit enabling us to see in any given juncture of human affairs what is virtuous and what is not, and how to come at the one and avoid the other. It is to be observed that prudence, whilst possessing in some sort an empire over all the moral virtues, itself aims to perfect not the will but the intellect in its practical decisions. Its function is to point out which course of action is to be taken in any round of concrete circumstances. It indicates which, here and now, is the golden mean wherein the essence of all virtue lies. It has nothing to do with directly willing the good it discerns. That is done by the particular moral virtue within whose province it falls. Prudence, therefore, has a directive capacity with regard to the other virtues. It lights the way and measures the arena for their exercise. The insight it confers makes one distinguish successfully between their mere semblance and their reality. It must preside over the eliciting of all acts proper to any one of them at least if they be taken in their formal sense. Thus, without prudence bravery becomes foolhardiness; mercy sinks into weakness, and temperance into fanaticism. But it must not be forgotten that prudence is a virtue adequately distinct from the others, and not simply a condition attendant upon their operation. Its office is to determine for each in practice those circumstances of time, place, manner, etc. which should be observed, and which the Scholastics comprise under the term medium rationis. So it is that whilst it qualifies immediately the intellect and not the will, it is nevertheless rightly styled a moral virtue. This is because the moral agent finds in it, if not the eliciting, at any rate the directive principle of virtuous actions. According to St. Thomas (II-II:47:8) it is its function to do three things: to take counsel, i.e. to cast about for the means suited in the particular case under consideration to reach the end of any one moral virtue; to judge soundly of the fitness of the means suggested; and, finally, to command their employment. If these are to be done well they necessarily exclude remissness and lack of concern; they demand the use of such diligence and care that the resultant act can be described as prudent, in spite of whatever speculative error may have been at the bottom of the process . . .
>>because that is the only thing by which we can make a choice.>> 11: Equivocation, as preference and choice are not synonymous, absent a triviality in the sense preference_1, especially in a morally freighted context. Part of virtue is the cultivation of disciplines such that our preferences -- in sense, preference_2 -- are (to the extent possible at a given time) habitually directed to the good, the sound, truth etc. 12: We can and too often do prefer -- sense 1 -- the vicious in a situation, and it remains our duty to reject such preferences and cultivate the discipline to do the right despite such wrongfully inclined preferences. >> It is sewn into the very nature of free will.>> 13: Freedom includes not only choice by preference but by discerning the right and in a very different sense of choice turning ourselves to the right through moral struggle. >>What moral first duty can be applied with ease in any situation? The moral duty to choose that which one prefers, and it is the equal of the duties to reason and truth.>> 14: Again, preference often denotes inclination that may be to the wrong or the unwise. Cases were given above such as cheesecake vs vegetables and dietary balance, to give familiar and only mildly moral examples. After all, gluttony is a vice. 15: I trust this response gives sufficient further clarification of why mere preference -- sense 1 -- is not a duty, but prudence that may well cut across preference -- sense 2 -- is. 16: Yes, one makes a decision -- involving a choice that may involve painful struggle -- to be prudent, but that is precisely not being led by preferences in the sense 2, inclinations. KF kairosfocus
Jerry I have been asking this same question on this site for over 12 years
:)) Imagine that.
Jerry I have been down this path before many times and have yet to find someone who will provide a definition of the word “evil.”
Jerry Why don’t you define evil since you use it a lot. I maintain no one has a coherent definition of this term.
No one but Jerry , he understood what evil is , imagine that :))) . Next he provide the definition of evil:
Jerry I do define it by saying it is the “eternal deprivation of God.”
After all , there is a definition that only Jerry knows it and all others don't understand . ;))) What a joke.
Jerry I refer you to “The Concept of Evil" Try making it into a dictionary definition that all can agree to and not point to a long website. I maintain it doesn’t exist. Prove me wrong. I have been asking this same question on this site for over 12 years and no one has stepped up. I have asked it other places with the same responses.
Jerry wants a dictionary definition of evil that is not in a dictionary. Imagine that.
Jerry Generally what you get is unwanted unpleasant circumstances or the equivalent. And these unpleasant circumstances can be ordered in unpleasantness. See my comment about stuttering and brain tumor in a child above.
Jerry There are lots of examples of icky stuff: the little girl in pain with the brain tumor, the holocaust, Black Death, Lisbon earthquake, mass shooting at Parkland HS, etc.
Unpleasantness,holocaust? Imagine that.
Jerry You clearly don’t understand the discussion that is going on.
Of course nobody understand except you. We are sooo lucky to have such a smart, intelligent, wise person who knows what evil is. Too bad you didn't read at least "Our Father" . You find it in Bible. I don't know exact page number. :))) You're welcome! Sandy
Jerry, if you can look at the case of a murder as described or the holocausts, genocides, democides etc of the past 100+ years and deny reality, intelligibility and meaningfulness of evil, in either the broad sense of privation of the good, or the narrower one of extreme wrong, then all I can do is duly note the fact of your personality. Similarly, I can point out that for cause the vast majority of humanity will readily acknowledge the reality, and that a summary was in fact provided. On strength of your response, I can give a fair comment remark that your apparent perception that others have not been able to give a substantial response and reasonable definition [which includes ostensive definition] is probably a matter of your similar personal stance. KF kairosfocus
VL, why do you insist on a strawman caricature? That people differ about moral decisions is no more problematic than that they differ on any other important matter. Even on self-evident truths, people will disagree; ideologically or personally driven clinging to an error or outright absurdity is a well known commonplace. As I have noted ever so often, we are finite, fallible, morally struggling, sometimes stubborn and ill-willed. Disagreement is not a problem as such. The very case you highlighted, divorce, shows how certain disagreements tied to hard heartedness lead to the often bitter prudence of ameliorative regulation of what it is infeasible to remove, where at a future date, heart-softening and linked democratisation etc or the like may open doors to reformation. KF kairosfocus
There is evil or not? Yes or no? Simple question, simple answer.
Most definitely not simple because there is no definition of the term. As least on this site. Define evil. No one has ever done so coherently on this site. Your comment indicates that you do not understand the discussion. Read the links I provided (#387) they will answer your question. You will find I believe there is only one evil thing in the universe. No one has ever showed otherwise. jerry
Free will is not about cocoa vs. vanilla icecream ,it's about ,for example,to help your old neighbor to clear the snow in front of the door vs. to watch a movie. Free will it's about moral choices not about preferences about food, shoes, football , basket teams ,colours or pets .
Jerry You clearly don’t understand the discussion that is going on. I’m sure many others are in the same boat. But the proper response is to read everything, ask questions and not hurl insults. There were links to some past discussions. You just equated someone with Hitler. That is repugnant. Especially since you don’t seem to understand what is being said.
There is evil or not? Yes or no? Simple question, simple answer. Sandy
re 705: interesting that you agree with WJM on that. I like that you prefer "choice" over "will". Also, re 706: as I've pointed out many times, atheism is not equivalent to materialism, and there are considerable differences between a theistic God and non-personal cosmic principles that some people believe exist and are thought of as God. being an atheist doesn't disqualify someone in my eyes. I'm an atheist in that I don't believe any of the gods of humankind's religions actually exist, although I'm agnostic about what beyond the material world does exist, since I don't think we can know. Viola Lee
Sartre, who I read decades ago and haven’t looked at since
I’m not sure Sartre is a good source. He obviously disqualified himself by identifying himself as an atheist. So he is begging the question in anything he says. There also doesn’t seem to be any use of right reasoning on his part. He is an interesting writer but until he can objectively support his atheistic beliefs he disqualified himself on this issue. Obviously if atheism is true all of natural law is bogus. jerry
VL “Upon continued thought, I think what WJM is calling a preference I am called a choice, perhaps???” Don’t think so. The preference precedes choice. My definition of free will, which BTW is a term I hate, I prefer “free choice” Anyway I digress. Free choice is the ability to choose what I MOST WANT ( prefer) given the options available to me at the time the choice is made. Vivid vividbleau
Why is repugnant if evil doesn’t exist?
You clearly don’t understand the discussion that is going on. I’m sure many others are in the same boat. But the proper response is to read everything, ask questions and not hurl insults. There were links to some past discussions. You just equated someone with Hitler. That is repugnant. Especially since you don’t seem to understand what is being said. jerry
Irrespective of this will-preference issue I think this discussion has been useful to me. I'm clearer about my own position, and clearer about both what KF is saying and about what the continued deficiencies in his position are. Upon continued thought, I think what WJM is calling a preference I am called a choice, perhaps??? Viola Lee
Hitler sent you friend request.
Jerry This is remarkably repugnant. I am defending the concept of the Judeo Christian God, and someone posts this. About as un-Christian as one can get.
Why is repugnant if evil doesn't exist? Sandy
Hitler sent you friend request.
This is remarkably repugnant. I am defending the concept of the Judeo Christian God, and someone posts this. About as un-Christian as one can get. jerry
KF said:
WJM, kindly reconsider the gap between your reconstruction and what I have actually argued. KF
I prefer not to. I have made a good effort to understand your argument; apparently, it is incomprehensible to the way my mind works. However, I do appreciate the conversation, because it led to my making a connection I had never made before: free will is always about preference. That works very well in my current worldview! William J Murray
VL said:
Ultimately what we choose to say and do defines what our preferences are. Choosing is an existential, in the moment, act. We may consult our self by turning our awareness inward upon our feelings and thoughts, and that might feel at times like trying to determine what we prefer, but ultimately what we choose defines what it is that we actually prefer.
That makes zero sense to me whatsoever. Looks like classic cart before the horse. You cannot make a decision without it being rooted in preference. William J Murray
Jerry
Kairosfocus The massive reality of evil and the pain and chaos it causes speak for themselves
No it doesn’t. You are just making assertions. Define, then defend that definition. So far no one has. The defense of any definition quickly descends into absurdity. I have asked this question dozens of times. Always same scenario plays out.
Hitler sent you friend request.
William J Murray Let’s say I decided to make my choices by flipping a coin.
Well you practically tell us that a coin is more trustworthy than yourself. I believe you. That explain why you came with MRT ,you flipped a coin. :)))) Sandy
An observation from several years ago
Discussing issues which border on science or philosophy led me to a conclusion I have held since first reading about this issue and which I see on this forum. If ID wins as Dave Scott says he hopes for and which I hope for too then the real food fight begins. It will be the Reformation all over again except with more variants and nearly unlimited methods of communication. Most of the people here don’t really care for ID other than it is a useful tool to support a worldview. If a better tool appeared tomorrow this forum would go extinct. Similarly the Darwinist doesn’t care about random mutations and natural selection as the basis for life, only that it is the best tool to support their world view. The current Darwinist would abandon Neo Darwinism very quickly if there was another purely mechanistic explanation that had better data behind it.
https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/gwu-prof-weighs-in-on-id/#comment-22536 I found it while trying to find different discussions of the "evil" concept. Over 15 years ago on UD. Notice it was comment #22536 while this comment is 725123 or over 700 thousand comments later. So what is being discussed on this site is really different philosophical world-views and rarely science. The science is so one sided that the anti ID people prefer not to address it. Essentially nothing has changed in over 700,000 comments. jerry
The big issue for KF is that despite people's common nature concerning rationality and our concern for others, he can't address the issue of people reaching different moral judgments about various situations. He tries to dismiss this as the result of unsound reasoning on some people's part, but when pressed on this question,
if we use our rationality et al correctly we will all reach the same conclusion [regarding moral decisions], just as 2 + 2 does not have multiple correct answers?",
his answer is, "we can and often do reach a similar conclusion", which obviously answers the question with, "No". This leaves the question of how to evaluate different moral views unanswered. WJM proposes a view which I can relate to my existentialist stance. Due to our free will (constrained as it is by the nature of the physical world of which we are a part), ultimately we have to use our rationality and compassion to choose our moral positions, and to take responsibility for those choices. This lies within us: there are no single "correct" objective answers to moral questions. To KF and others, this "subjectivist" position takes ones directly over the cliff and into the abyss of nihilism, but I don't believe that is true for the vast, vast majority of human beings: we do have a common nature that leads to some basic core starting points that we all respond to within ourselves and incorporate into our choices. However, I take issue with WJM couching this in terms of "preferences". Back at 575, I wrote,
WJM writes, "4. We always utilize our free will to seek out and instantiate, if possible, that which we prefer." This doesn't seem meaningful. How do we know what we prefer? By looking at what we will. This seems circular.
Ultimately what we choose to say and do defines what our preferences are. Choosing is an existential, in the moment, act. We may consult our self by turning our awareness inward upon our feelings and thoughts, and that might feel at times like trying to determine what we prefer, but ultimately what we choose defines what it is that we actually prefer. I don't think there is a gap here where first we determine our preference and then we choose a stance based on that preference. The choosing creates the preference, not the other way around. Sartre, who I read decades ago and haven't looked at since, has some relevant things to say. A quick google search for an article found this:
"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does." ... While the circumstances of our birth and upbringing are beyond our control, he reasons that once we become self-aware (and we all do eventually), we have to make choices — choices that define our very 'essence'. Sartre's theory of existentialism states that “existence precedes essence”, that is only by existing and acting a certain way do we give meaning to our lives. According to him, there is no fixed design for how a human being should be and no God to give us a purpose. Therefore, the onus for defining ourselves, and by extension humanity, falls squarely on our shoulders. ...With nothing to restrict us, we have the choice to take actions to become who we want to be and lead the life we want to live. According to Sartre, each choice we make defines us while at the same time revealing to us what we think a human being should be.
Viola Lee
Choosing necessarily requires preference. It’s unavoidable.
He chose the perfect one. If you want to say this is a preference, then so be it. God prefers the perfect choice. jerry
The massive reality of evil and the pain and chaos it causes speak for themselves
No it doesn’t. You are just making assertions. Define, then defend that definition. So far no one has. The defense of any definition quickly descends into absurdity. I have asked this question dozens of times. Always same scenario plays out. This is not the place to debate this. I suggested at #366 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-evil-is-absurd/#comment-724230 jerry
Jerry, I responded to a claim I saw in passing above, whether you or another I do not know for the moment. That does not matter. The massive reality of evil and the pain and chaos it causes speak for themselves. The simple identification of cases of note such as the specific murder of a child as described, or the mass murders of the past century suffices to show yardstick cases. That allows for definition by key case and family resemblance, ostensive definition. Beyond, even if there can be no precising definition, as happens with the case of life, that suffices to show that the term is meaningful. As it is, evil is a worldviews level concept and the ability to address the reality of evil is a test, tied to the question of the good. Worldviews that assign evil to meaninglessness invariably also cannot address the good, and end up as amoral. This is because, fundamentally, evil is not the mirror image opposite of the good but instead a parasite upon it: the twisting, perversion, frustration, blocking of the good and beneficial from its proper end, an end which in many key yardstick cases is naturally intelligible and manifest. A key test has long been the Kantian Categorical imperative: the good acts on a principle that is universalisable, the evil on what cannot be the global norm. The classic illustration is lying vs the good of verbal communication. Verbal communication is a great good with huge benefits, and speaking truthfully is universalisable. Were lying to become the norm, trust and community would disintegrate, creating chaos. Lying is a destructive parasite on verbal communication. KF kairosfocus
Let's say I decided to make my choices by flipping a coin. That is the methodology I prefer - for whatever reason - by which to make my choices. Let's say I make my choices according to the scientific evidence; that is the methodology I prefer. If I guide every choice by strict adherence to logic, that is my preferred method. Every choice comes out of a literal reading of the Bible or Koran? Again, that is my preference. Ultimately all actualized choices are rooted in preference. There is no escaping that fact, just as ther is no escaping the fact of gravity, A=A and 2+2=4. William J Murray
WJM, kindly reconsider the gap between your reconstruction and what I have actually argued. KF kairosfocus
If so, then God chose to create the perfect world not just prefer one to another.
Choosing necessarily requires preference. It's unavoidable. William J Murray
Here's the thing folks, it's hilarious that any of you think you know anything at all about Ultimate Reality. You don't. Not while you're on the Roller Coaster of Life. You'll have to wait until you die to get the joke. Hehe. Hehehehehe. Concealed Citizen
Leibniz’s term was “the best of all possible worlds.” If so, then God chose to create the perfect world not just prefer one to another.
The claim that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds is the central argument in Leibniz's theodicy, or his attempt to solve the problem of evil.
jerry
If one believes God deliberately created this specific world out of all possible worlds, it necessarily means that God preferred this world over all other possibilities. This makes "preference" a root aspect of God. Yet, KF dismisses preference as "mere preference!" It is the inescapable, God-rooted, existential nature of the original free will choice behind the instantiation of this particular world under that worldview. "Mere" preference, indeed. Under KF's view, it was "mere" preference that created this world and not any other. William J Murray
My individual "moral duty," then, is clear. Since pursuing my preferences is unavoidable at every level, and my preferences represent the only necessary goal available to me, the only available moral application of truth and right reason is using them to instantiate my preferential goals. That is, in fact, what every single one of us is doing right now to the degree we can. So, morality has both objective and subjective qualities. At the existential necessity level, they are objective, or universal to all sentient experience. Since available free will choices are always guided by individual preference, the individual behavior aspect of morality is, objectively speaking, subjective. It is necessarily so. It cannot be anything else. William J Murray
I again see the “evil is a meaningless term” claim somewhere above.
I constantly make this claim here and other places. So far no one has disputed my claim with definition and logic. There are long threads on it here in the past. It is a term that has no definition. People use it to refer to unwanted unpleasant things. I am mainly referring to what is called natural evil and Kf immediately goes into moral evil. And even with moral evil it immediately degenerates into something that is relative in nature. Frustration is used above. So that anything that is frustrated is then evil.? Then there a zillion things every day that are frustrating and thus evil. So if evil is everywhere we look, it then becomes meaningless. This is not the place to discuss it. It has been done dozens of times here in the past. I linked above to a thread from a year ago. See #366. jerry
Sorry KF. You built the house. Now you have to live in it. You don't get to brush off an inescapable aspect of the nature of our existence as "mere preference." Once you understand it, it is self-evidently true that every single act of free will below the "inescapable" root level of our other "inescapable duties" is necessarily, absolutely made by preference. It may be a preference to make decisions based on extrapolations of duty to truth and right reason beyond what is existentially unavoidable, or it may be the preference to make irrational decisions and lie to other people. Every choice we can make, we make according to our preference. That is self-evidently true. Since our duty to free will preference cannot be avoided at any level, since it is inescapable at every level in any decision, since it is the very nature of free will choice, we cannot act immorally because acting on preference is an unavoidable aspect of our existential nature. It is as universal and as inescapable as gravity. William J Murray
Later . . . kairosfocus
PPPS: I again see the "evil is a meaningless term" claim somewhere above. Instantly, as a great many profound thinkers have found -- and too often suffered under -- the opposite, such is likely to be idiosyncratic. And in fact there is a longstanding understanding that evil is the state of affairs or action of frustration, perversion or blocking of the fulfillment of due purpose for that which is a good in itself. Where, often, that due end is naturally intelligible. Something, that can be better understood through an accumulation of case studies. Arguably, a worldview that cannot acknowledge much less discern between good and evil shows itself to be conducive to the latter. The good, in turn, is more fundamental, and can be seen through the yardstick 1 case. A child has in him/her self potential to be a thriving educated, productive, responsible person, part of a family and community that are likewise thriving. Indeed, we want many well brought up children to sustain such a community. School, is a means of promoting such thriving. It is an undeniable evil to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually torture and murder such a child on its way home from school, for one's pleasure, a pleasure that here shows a preference for destructive domination of the victimised other. From this sadly actual study, extend by inductive inference to other cases. kairosfocus
PPS: Freedom, thus first appears as an aspect of our nature, part of why we are morally governed, including in our rationality. Therefore, part of the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities that frames the civil peace of justice is respect for that freedom. Yes, for prudential reasons, the sub-society of a family or a school may need to restrain the freedoms of a child, under the supervision of parents and teachers in loco parentis, but this is for protective and nurturing reasons. Where, of course the child often chafes under restrictions of discipline, pivot of say the parable of the prodigal son. Freedom is to be exercised with prudence, charioteer of the virtues. This specific case shows why mere preferences are not sufficient to characterise duties as it is easy to prefer what is detrimental, with children as a paradigm case of immaturity. I may prefer cheesecake to vegetables, but a balanced diet points more to the latter than the former. Where the prudent person will reserve a small bit of the former for a very occasional treat. The latter, will be a daily, significant proportion of a healthy diet. And veggies, notoriously, are an acquired taste. One, that requires discipline under prudence to acquire. Something, that too many are disinclined to heed today. This simple, toy case, extends to many other issues in a spoiled brat, suicidally self-destructive but willful civilisation hell-bent on marches of folly. kairosfocus
WJM, it seems there is, "arguendo," some progress. I do not list free will as a first duty as duty obtains only for beings with responsible, rational freedom. Freedom is the premise of duty, the context where the is is potentially separated from an ought to have been that was once open but now has been foreclosed, to detriment. I have repeatedly highlighted that objects driven by dynamic-stochastic processes do not exhibit freedom to choose, they are cause-effect chain bound, including specifically computing substrates driven by mechanisms, programming and chance influences. By contrast we are self-moved, reflexive, choosing creatures -- agents -- that initiate as first causes, with power to actually choose. That is why our rational inference has credibility, it is why our judgements have credibility, it is why bodies of knowledge on warrant are more than conditioned internalised mouth noises. If one, as agent A, is not able to actively choose Ci or Cj, on evaluation from the range C1 to Cn, then one cannot genuinely face the issue of which ought to be chosen, or even whether an overlooked Ck is better than either. Where, better may imply least of bad choices. Only those able to freely choose can face duties. And, duty can be refused. Of course, that may have consequences and Kant's CI is sometimes helpful to discern the consequences, informed by the premise that society rises above the state of anarchic nature by making compromises that are mutually binding and work to promote human thriving. KF PS: Of course, it is hard to discern the right in chaotic and confused, conflict riddled environments. Why do you think that for 3000 years we have had on record from one of the wisest ever Kings, an entire book of wisdom sayings, with this preface [likely, written later, by Ezra]:
Prov 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: 2 To know wisdom and instruction, to understand words of insight, 3 to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity; 4 to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth— 5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance, 6 to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles. 7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. [ESV]
Prudence is a lifetime study and acquired taste. kairosfocus
I actually listed it earlier in the thread. You got it right earlier, VL, and Seversky also just nailed it. Free will is an inescapable aspect of the nature of our existence and, as you pointed out VL when I asked about it, free will inescapably means making choices according to one's preference. That is as necessary as when KF says even when we deny truth or logic we are still appealing to it (you can't speak coherently without it); there is no denying that every free will choice is inescapably one of preference. By KF's logic, it is a moral first duty to make choices according to our preference because that is the only thing by which we can make a choice. It is sewn into the very nature of free will. What moral first duty can be applied with ease in any situation? The moral duty to choose that which one prefers, and it is the equal of the duties to reason and truth. William J Murray
Our first "moral duty" is to ourselves? Seversky
Am I reading you correctly, WJM: you are not actually telling us what this third "first moral duty" is? I'm interested in the "murkiness" issue: how does one apply right reason to the vast array of real-world situations with moral elements. This is the question that I have been pressing KF on, so I'll be interested in what you have to say. Viola Lee
I think I'm finally understanding what KF is talking about. What he is calling "moral first duties" are inescapable qualities of our existence as "responsibly free rational beings," such as the inescapable qualities of identity, reasoning and true statements indicated by the principles of logic. As per the common definition of "duty," we have a duties imposed on us by the society we are born into, whether we like it or not; and we have duties assigned to us by the inescapable aspects of the nature of our existence. I'm going to give all that to KF arguendo; he's established what a first duty is by definition, what imposed them on us, and it's clear there are dire ramifications for being derelict in one's first duties. As those duties extrapolate further out, those duties can become, as Jerry might say, more murky. KF might say that the way to parse these out would be using "right reason" and various forms of evidence. There's still the issue of whether or not it's sound to consider these duties moral duties, but heck, I'm going to give that to KF arguendo as well, at least for now. Existential duties = first moral duties by definition, for the sake of further discussion. The problem here is that while KF has identified two moral first duties - truth and right reason - he has entirely left out a third moral first duty also imposed on us by the nature of our existence (and no, this has nothing to do with MRT.) In fact, this third existentially necessary first duty tells us exactly how to parse ALL "murky" moral issues; further, it tells us exactly how to make any decision that is not inescapably dictated by the other first duties. KF, are you just not addressing the other first duty for some reason, or have you missed it? I'd hate to think you missed it, because your whole worldview depends on understanding and correctly fulfilling your duties and employing right reason. Kinda hard to correctly reason these things out if that fundamental a piece is missing from your equation. William J Murray
JVL When someone is absolutely convinced they are ‘right’ then you can either agree with them or walk away. It’s your call.
St. Paul said so , 2000 years ago. Lieutenant Commander Data
Kairosfocus: my argument clearly was that first duties are self evident by inescapability, which latter you inadvertently showed. Thus, sound reasoning will lead there. While I do appreciate and applaud all of you who are continuing to attempt to get Kairosfocus to define his terms and acknowledge another point of view as being, at least, logically tenable . . . I think it's clear from the statement I have reproduced that he is never, ever going to do any of those things. Which is why I, personally, have stopped belabouring those points. What's the point in arguing with someone whose viewpoint is unfalsifiable? When someone is absolutely convinced they are 'right' then you can either agree with them or walk away. It's your call. JVL
Thanks, Jerry. I notice that it it doesn't define "socialist" or include communism. In my opinion, the word "socialist" has been turned into an inaccurate bogeyman term, so I think this would have to be discussed in considerable more detail to be meaningful. But thanks for the reference. Viola Lee
Acartia Stevie:
But, yes, they are born amoral.
That can be dismissed as it is absent any evidence
All I have said is that our morality is something that develops as we grow and is the result of learning, repetition, negative and positive feedback etc.
And that is your unsupported assertion.
My parents and teachers and friends instilled in me the value of being honest.
It didn't work ET
Jerry said:
Which is why I believe we live in the best of all possible worlds.
I've been to a better one. William J Murray
Jerry, There was no "doubt" in what you expressed: "Can God create an entity that is eternally deprived of Him? Definitely possible." Perhaps a better wording would be: "I believe it is possible." The question I asked was, what makes it "definitely possible" in your view? To which you basically responded, "it's something we cannot understand," which itself necessarily implies understanding God or else you can't know it is something we cannot understand. Just because you currently do not understand a thing doesn't mean we cannot understand it. William J Murray
Kairosfocus, >> In short, conscience.<>Of course, you imagine that conscience is socialised, that we are at birth tabula rasa, morally speaking — born amoral. Any adult who recognises that children from very early show moral struggle will reconsider that.>> 2. I never said that a newborn was a tabula rasa. They have a functioning brain with many reflexes built-in. But, yes, they are born amoral. Do you have any links to newborns showing moral struggles, or is this just one of your many unsupported beliefs? 3. Newborns have some very basic desires. Food, warmth, touch, etc. I doubt very much if they have any moral conclusions about lying, stealing, same-sex-attraction, premarital sex. >>The onward implications of amorality, radical relativism and emotivism speak, too.>> 4. What does it speak to? All I have said is that our morality is something that develops as we grow and is the result of learning, repetition, negative and positive feedback etc. <<For example, if we are tabula rasa at birth, why the high dudgeon over those conditioned to think slavery may be a misfortune but it is an ages old universal, perfectly legal institution, or that people of colour happen not to have faced the severe selection pressure that makes Aryans a superior breed [marked by skin colour conducive to harvesting vitamin D], or that the superior has a right to eliminate the unfit and along the way to subjugate and use such as a forced labour workforce.<>The amorality speaks for itself and its absurdity refutes it.>> 6. Not if morality is something develops and changes as we grow. >> i repeat the regrettably real test case, with amplification: it is self-evidently evil to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young black [v dark skinned in fact] child for one’s pleasure.>> 7. Really? Do you have any evidence that a newborn believes this? Or is it not more likely that our view of kidnapping and torture of the innocent is something that we can easily reason for ourselves based on our need to live amongst other people? The fact that you think that you need some universal objective moral value to draw the conclusion that kidnapping and torturing a child speaks volumes. And not in your favour. Remind me not to allow you near my granddaughter. >>Nominalism, having explained away morality and overlooked the monstrous absurdity, one dismisses duty as a label for a psycho-socially conditioned guilt feeling.>> 8. No, guilt is real, and I believe that we are born with the capacity for guilt. However, what triggers a guilt response is the result of conditioning. If a young child never receives negative feedback for lying, they would never develop a feeling of guilt when they lie. Keeping in mind that this feedback is often very subtle and not black-and-white. >>An attempt to duck having to explain away how a particularly common delusion can be pivotal to our thriving as social creatures.>> 9. Our moral values being the result of conditioning does not make them delusional. My parents and teachers and friends instilled in me the value of being honest. Because I live amongst other people, it provides a benefit to me. However, if I grew up alone, with no interaction with others, can you state with certainty that I would feel any guilt about lying to someone on the rare occasion that I interact with them? >>Defensive projection by hasty, reckless generalisation.>> 10. Is it a generalization? I assume that you have children. Did they ever lie to you? Did they ever take a cookie without permission? Did your father every punish you for lying or for taking something without permission? >>Notice, the appeal to first duties of reason. Sorry, that’s your potty training speaking, or else it is a sign of the precise inescapability you would dismiss.>> 11. Yes, I am appealing to your ability to reason, in spite of little evidence supporting it. I guess I am a hopeful individual. >>You clearly are unaware of dutiful children who strive to be good and true beyond whatever forces may obtain in their surroundings.>> 12. As are you. An intelligent child quickly learns that they can benefit from pleasing their parents. And how do you please your parents? You publicly display the behaviours that they have taught you are good and avoid public behaviours that they consider to be bad. The Eddie Haskell approach. >>Confirming the potty training fallacy in action.>> 13. Are you suggesting that learned behaviours can't become deeply entrenched in our psyche? Even to the point where they can trigger feelings of guilt or shame? All of the experts disagree with you. >>And again. Rather, it is hard to resist fashionable fallacies even when long past sell-by dates, but a responsible thinker will do so regardless of the determined voyage of folly.>> 14. What fashionable fallacies are your referring to? I suspect that they involve any opinion that differs from yours. Was equality for women a fashionable fallacy? How about inter-racial relationships? Inter-faith relationships? What about equality of opportunity for homosexuals? What about same sex marriage? >>Of course, we yet again see appeals to first duties, with locus of failure to heed such projected to the other.>> 15. Calling something a first duty does not make it an objective duty/rule/obligation/requirement. Your appeal to what you refer to as your "first duties" is not a proof. >>The self-referential incoherence should be manifest. Psychologism attempting to explain away morality as conditioning of children refutes itself.>> 16. Putting "ism" at the end of a word is a cheap and lame attempt to undermine an argument. And I have already stated that the sense that we label "morality" is real. Once we have a deeply entrenched moral value, it is very difficult for us to go against it. It has also been shown that doing so can cause very real and measurable mental and physical distress. What is up for discussion is how these individual values become "entrenched". 17. Most western women would feel deep shame if they were caught topless in public. For them, not being nude in public is a deeply held moral value. However, most would not feel the same shame about wearing bikini at a beach. Something that would have been scandalous a century ago. ps/ 18. Numbering your sentences doesn't make your arguments any more sound. Steve Alten2
can you point me to a Gallup poll and the 40% number?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx jerry
Jerry said: You are using your experience of this world to hypothesize what all worlds can be like. Nope. I'm posing a logical question that begins with two premises and asking those who agree with those premises to demonstrate the flaw in my reasoning. I'm also pointing out the flaws in your reasoning as evidenced by the contradictions in your statements. William J Murray
Then you have no rational means by which to conclude it is “definitely possible” for God to create a being devoid of God. It’s just something you “know” or “assume.” Correct?
We can only use what we believe is the best explanation. Which is why I believe we live in the best of all possible worlds. We cannot know why it is so but doubt is essential for such a world. So if you want to accuse me of having doubt, so be it. But that does not excuse anyone of not using right reason to what are characteristics of the correct answer. jerry
Yes, Jerry it is on topic as an example of the complexities of things which include moral issues and which people disagree about. And I would be interested in how Gallop phrased the question. I would be extremely surprised if it asked "do you believe that socialism and communism are desirable economic systems." I would also be interested in whether they defined those terms, as I think most people have an erroneous idea about what socialism is and whether and how it is relevant to US politics. So, can you point me to a Gallop poll and the 40% number? Viola Lee
Sowell is a clear analytical thinker
Yes, he is. He should be a model for everyone. jerry
something that is way off-topic
No, it is absolutely at the core of the discussion. Not this particular point per se but definitely it and others like it that lead to a fruitful human experience. I am not looking for a discussion of this specific topic but using it as an example of the lack of right reason by many in our society. Aside: Gallup says the number is around 40%. So it is not trivial. jerry
Jerry, Then you have no rational means by which to conclude it is "definitely possible" for God to create a being devoid of God. It's just something you "know" or "assume." Correct? BTW, to say "You seem to want it to go all the way to everything but it cannot. " logically means that you have "gone all the way" and understand God or else you cannot possibly know that that God "cannot" be understood by us. It's one of those logical contradiction thingies, but I realize you're not operating out of logic here. William J Murray
@Jerry:
I was in advertising and the then master of advertising was Proctor and Gamble. They had a rule that all correspondence must be one page or less. It forced everyone to organize their thoughts to meet such a requirement. Needless to say, I did not work on Proctor nor did I master the writing skills to do so.
When it comes to writing a thesis or presenting, my English teacher recommended me the goverment site http://www.plainlanguage.gov
- Prefer the familiar word to the far-fetched. - Prefer the concrete word to the abstraction. - Prefer the single word to the circumlocution. - Prefer the short word to the long. - Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance word. Kathy McGinty offers tongue-in-cheek instructions for bulking up your simple, direct sentences: "There is no escaping the fact that it is considered very important to note that a number of various available applicable studies ipso facto have generally identified the fact that additional appropriate nocturnal employment could usually keep juvenile adolescents off thoroughfares during the night hours, including but not limited to the time prior to midnight on weeknights and/or 2 a.m. on weekends." And the original, using stronger, simpler words: "More night jobs would keep youths off the streets."
Btw. I'm currently reading the "Discrimination and Disparities". That's the one you recommended to me. It's a really pleasant surprise. Sowell is a clear analytical thinker (very much like me) and the way he communicates his thoughts is reader-friendly. He uses common words, and even though some of the sentences are pretty long, they don't feel bloated. They are structured in a way that they are easy to understand. I've never felt the need to reread any passage. AndyClue
What’s your model of God that makes God able to create something that is “not God?”
Ask the slug about humans. you are assuming we can reason to everything on our own but we obviously cannot. There are definite clues but not an unchained set of facts to lead us to everything. For somethings we have to be told. And even then we will only know a little bit. Is this an essential characteristic of the best of all possible worlds? You are using your experience of this world to hypothesize what all worlds can be like. Logic can only go so far without a much higher level of understanding. You seem to want it to go all the way to everything but it cannot. We are dealing with a lot of facts, our existence is the sure thing and as the OP tries to point out, the nature of this existence tells us a lot more. But then everything gets murky. Because it is murky, does not mean there isn't clarity somewhere. The slug is certainly in the dark about most things. And so are we. As I have been advocating, it must remain murky for meaningful decisions to be made. jerry
Jerry writes something that is way off-topic, but I'll mention it anyway: "A large percentage of the population believes that socialism and communism is a desirable economic system." Are you referring to the US? I seriously doubt what you say is true. Yes people to varying degrees believe it is desirable for the government to support various social services, although there is lots of disagreement about exactly what and how much, but that is really not socialism and definitely not communism. And this is actually a good real-world example of the kind of thing I am questioning KF about, but here is not the place to go into details. Viola Lee
Jerry, You said that it was definitely possible for God to create a being deprived of God for eternity. In order for this to be a "definite possibility," at least from your perspective, you must have some model of God that allows for that to be possible. My question is, if something can exist that is outside of, or not comprised of, God, where did that "outside" or "other stuff" come from? Does God exist in a space where God can clear Himself out of an area? are there materials other than "God" that exist that God uses to create an entity not comprised of God? What's your model of God that makes God able to create something that is "not God?" William J Murray
KF:
>>The basis of quarrels are >> 1: Notice appeal to duty to truth, accurate description of states of affairs, i.e. reality. You already show the inescapability [sic] of appeals to first duties.
If I read you right, what you are calling a "first duty" is what is commonly called a "value." Yeah, so people appeal to their values. So what? Nobody denies that.
>>shared, agreed upon,>> 2: Why are they shared, agreed, like your appeal to duty to truth just now? ANS: As, the first duties of reason are inescapable, inescapably true, self-evident.
I don't have any absolute "duty" to "truth." I would lie like hell if it meant saving one of my children from harm.
>>subjective>> 3: You here injected a loaded, question-begging term, reflecting common indoctrination of our day.
It's a meaningful term that you apparently can't deal with.
4: We are subjects, so we are always involved in our perceptions, views, thoughts, things we prize etc. But that does not undermine that some things can be warranted as transcending the error-prone perceptions of an individual or dominant power faction etc.
Such as?
5: Indeed, the issues on the table here are precisely the means of that transcending, no wonder the particularly stiff resistance. Duties, to truth, right reason, warrant, other prudence etc are what we are here pondering.
What is the means?
>>values between the participants.>> 6: The issue is not intersubjective agreement but warrant. Which highlights what should be agreed.
"Should" implies some value(s) prior to the subjective values. What are these values and how can anyone ascertain them?
>>Among humans values can vary widely,>> 7: Yes, many errors are possible, many factors may change, such is irrelevant to warrant as pivotal to going to objective conclusions.
Then what is the relevant warrant and where can I find it?
8: Being irrational or irresponsible is no warrant.
Meaningless without nailing down what the foundational objective "duties" are. What are they and where can they be found?
>>which is why some quarrels have no resolution.>>
9: At no point did I argue that all or most quarrels can be or are amicably resolved by agreement. What I have highlighted, with many others, is that consistently, across times and cultures there is a substantial core of agreement.
There has been a substantial core of disagreement too. Not that "agreement" or consensus is any sort of basis for "inescapable first duties." Historically, consensus has often been dead-ass wrong and/or in conflict with consensus of other periods. Consensus is fluid and subjective and in no way points the way to "inescapable first duties."
10: Particularly, that in our disagreements, even on the very subject of trying to object to the listed first duties of reason, invariably, objectors find themselves appealing to what they would overturn.
Best example?
11: That striking inconsistency is a powerful clue, indicating that we have here hit on a key prior of reason, inescapable first duties. Duties that include principles of logic, and so we find that rejection becomes self referentially incoherent and self-defeating. We are at self-evident first truths.
Um, no, you've never come close to demonstrating any such thing as an "inescapable first duty." Concealed Citizen
KF said:
The duties that I principally have highlighted are those resulting from being a responsibly, rationally significantly free creature
So, you are saying that the duties you have highlighted are imposed on us by the nature of our existence as "responsibly, rationally, significantly free creatures. This, by the definition of duty you have used, I can understand. These existential-level duties (to principles of logic and appeal to truth statements distinguishing identities and contradictions, etc) cannot be disobeyed if I am going to continue to function a all as a sentient, free will being capable of making responsible, coherent decisions. The penalties (consequences) to being derelict in those existential duties don't even need to be addressed because they are obvious. KF, I feel like we're making some headway. Are we agreed on the above? William J Murray
Let's look at something that people are failing to do. A large percentage of the population believes that socialism and communism is a desirable economic system. Now when such a system fails 100% of the time and brings hardship to those under it, how is anyone using "right reason" in their choice? How is anyone who advocates such a system, doing their duty to use right reason? I am using the criteria of human flourishing to evaluate a choice. That is one criteria. What are others? jerry
Then you must disagree with the premise that God is the ground of all being and existence. Is that correct?
I have no idea what you are trying to say so impossible to agree or disagree. jerry
reading the literally tens of thousands of words
From something written 14 years ago I just found on the internet
The Day You Became A Better Writer I went from being a bad writer to a good writer after taking a one-day course in "business writing. " I couldn't believe how simple it was. I'll tell you the main tricks here so you don't have to waste a day in class. Business writing is about clarity and persuasion. The main technique is keeping things simple. Simple writing is persuasive. A good argument in five sentences will sway more people than a brilliant argument in a hundred sentences. Don't fight it. Simple means getting rid of extra words. Don't write, "He was very happy" when you can write "He was happy. " You think the word "very" adds something. It doesn't. Prune your sentences. (actually disagree with this or else others will accuse one of not describing the situation fairly) Humor writing is a lot like business writing. It needs to be simple. The main difference is in the choice of words. For humor, don't say "drink" when you can say "swill. " Your first sentence needs to grab the reader. Go back and read my first sentence to this post. I rewrote it a dozen times. It makes you curious. That's the key. Write short sentences. Avoid putting multiple thoughts in one sentence. Readers aren't as smart as you'd think. Learn how brains organize ideas. Readers comprehend "the boy hit the ball" quicker than "the ball was hit by the boy. " Both sentences mean the same, but it's easier to imagine the object (the boy) before the action (the hitting). AlI brains work that way. (Notice I didn't say, "That is the way all brains work")
I was in advertising and the then master of advertising was Proctor and Gamble. They had a rule that all correspondence must be one page or less. It forced everyone to organize their thoughts to meet such a requirement. Needless to say, I did not work on Proctor nor did I master the writing skills to do so. jerry
Jerry said:
Can God create an entity that is eternally deprived of Him? Definitely possible.
Then you must disagree with the premise that God is the ground of all being and existence. Is that correct? William J Murray
F/N: I clip Dictionary dot com: >>duty [ doo-tee, dyoo- ] See synonyms for: duty / duties on Thesaurus.com noun, plural du·ties. something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation. the binding or obligatory force of something that is morally or legally right; moral or legal obligation. [--> how such arises is a further question and was addressed above.] an action or task required by a person's position or occupation; function: the duties of a clergyman. the respectful and obedient conduct due a parent, superior, elder, etc. an act or expression of respect. a task or chore that a person is expected to perform: It's your duty to do the dishes.>> The duties that I principally have highlighted are those resulting from being a responsibly, rationally significantly free creature, the only sort of being that has rational freedom to think, argue, warrant and know as well as genuinely choose. Unfortunately, in recewnt centuries all of these terms have been unduly clouded by academics and intelectuals failing in their first duties, and which leads to what we see above. If we don't sort it out, we are going down hard as a civilisation. kairosfocus
More questions in a good faith effort to understand what you are saying, KF: 1. How do I recognize a moral duty? 2. Do I apprehend my moral duties directly via conscience? 3. Can I logically work out my moral duties from an "existential nature" starting point" using "right reason?" 4. Is it sometimes, usually or always a combination of the two? 5. Is there more to the "penalty" aspect of being derelict in my duty than "what consequences actually occur in my life" as the result of being derelict? 6. What nature do these penalties have? Meaning, are they physical? Psychological? Spiritual? Social? Eternal? Different combinations in different cases? William J Murray
then evil cannot exist
I have said several times over the course of years on this site, that the word evil has no meaning because no one can give a definition for the word. Everyone loves to use this word with no definition, rarely in consistent ways. Always to use a favorite Kf word, "inescapably," contradictory. It seems they cannot help but use this word with no definition. It seems to be a compulsion. Now given that, there is one definition that can be used that has meaning. That is the eternal deprivation from God. So the interesting question is, can God create such a situation where this could happen? Can God create an entity that is eternally deprived of Him? Definitely possible. But if God is omnibenevolent why would He do so? That is the mystery. Is it because the entity chooses to do so. Then is God going against His omnibenevolent nature? If God can create other entities that can know Him, must He then create an infinite number? If He fails to do so then is He being not good by preventing entities from existing that could know Him? We are trying to read the mind of God when the difference between us and God is infinitely greater than the distance between us and a slug. I bet that slug is pretty sure what it senses is correct. To sum up, evil is a very specific situation which exists only because God has created entities that choose this situation. God did not make the choice, the entities make the choice. Getting back to the OP, is it because the entities in this world, fail deliberately to use their reasoning to come to the correct conclusions. Or should I say, do we have a duty to use our reason correctly? jerry
KF writes, "VL, please re-examine what I have consistently pointed out. It may help to go back and read the OP. KF" Your just evading a simple, clear answer to the question, KF. Re-reading the literally tens of thousands of words you've written will not clarify, because in all those words you do not make clear what the answer to this question is:
if we use our rationality et al correctly we will all reach the same conclusion [regarding moral decisions], just as 2 + 2 does not have multiple correct answers?
You have said, at 632, that "we can and often do reach a similar conclusion. Notice how that does not answer the question at all. It says similar conclusion, not correct. It says can and often do , not must, as we must with 2 + 2. Viola Lee
KF, If you refuse to answer direct questions I ask in my good faith attempt to understand what you mean, I don't know how to proceed. I've read what you wrote; it brings me no closer to understanding you because you keep saying the same thing over and over in the same manner. Are you saying that my duties are imposed on me by the nature of my existence? Yes? No? Yes, but ...?" Yes, and ..? Question is ill formed? Give me something direct to work with. Are you saying that the penalty for being derelict in my duties is whatever the consequences are to my derelict behavior? Yes? No? Yes, but ...?" Yes, and ..? Question is ill formed? Give me something direct to work with. William J Murray
ViolaLee That is, it is possible for two people to use right reason correctly and still reach different positions on moral issues, which is what I have been trying to establish.
:))) That term "corectly" have no meaning in this context. You mean what that person could think is correctly which is very different from correctly . Of course 2 people could reach different conclussions using correctly same moral law ,but only if at least one of them use flawed premises .
Concealed Citizen So you can yammer on about duty all day long, but the basis of duty differs widely, and is no pointer to any sort of objective morality.
Only one question: your ideea from above is objective or subjective? I'm asking for a friend. Sandy
WJM, that seems to be because you have in effect skimmed over what I laid out step by step, e.g. at 555. You spoke of preferences and agreements, I pointed out that you are using duty idiosyncratically, e,g. many duties obtain simply because you are a born american. KF kairosfocus
PS: Let me clip:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
kairosfocus
VL, please re-examine what I have consistently pointed out. It may help to go back and read the OP. KF kairosfocus
CC, Notice: >>The basis of quarrels are >> 1: Notice appeal to duty to truth, accurate description of states of affairs, i.e. reality. You already show the inescapability of appeals to first duties. >>shared, agreed upon,>> 2: Why are they shared, agreed, like your appeal to duty to truth just now? ANS: As, the first duties of reason are inescapable, inescapably true, self-evident. >>subjective>> 3: You here injected a loaded, question-begging term, reflecting common indoctrination of our day. 4: We are subjects, so we are always involved in our perceptions, views, thoughts, things we prize etc. But that does not undermine that some things can be warranted as transcending the error-prone perceptions of an individual or dominant power faction etc. 5: Indeed, the issues on the table here are precisely the means of that transcending, no wonder the particularly stiff resistance. Duties, to truth, right reason, warrant, other prudence etc are what we are here pondering. >>values between the participants.>> 6: The issue is not intersubjective agreement but warrant. Which highlights what should be agreed. >>Among humans values can vary widely,>> 7: Yes, many errors are possible, many factors may change, such is irrelevant to warrant as pivotal to going to objective conclusions. 8: Being irrational or irresponsible is no warrant. >>which is why some quarrels have no resolution.>> 9: At no point did I argue that all or most quarrels can be or are amicably resolved by agreement. What I have highlighted, with many others, is that consistently, across times and cultures there is a substantial core of agreement. 10: Particularly, that in our disagreements, even on the very subject of trying to object to the listed first duties of reason, invariably, objectors find themselves appealing to what they would overturn. 11: That striking inconsistency is a powerful clue, indicating that we have here hit on a key prior of reason, inescapable first duties. Duties that include principles of logic, and so we find that rejection becomes self referentially incoherent and self-defeating. We are at self-evident first truths. KF kairosfocus
KF, Do you not understand what I've said? Let me put it in all caps: I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU USE THE WORD "DUTY." I don't understand how what you are saying is a duty. If you keep using the word duty as your explanation of the concept of duty, it doesn't help whatsoever. I haven't "ducked" anything because I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that my duties are imposed on me by the nature of my existence? Are you saying that the penalty for being derelict in my duties is whatever consequences happen to ensue? William J Murray
But that's not what you said, KF. You said, "In that context [using core first principles and duties of reason], simply from inescapability thus self evidence, we can and often do reach a similar conclusion. You did not say must lead there because there is in fact only one correct position, which is the question I was asking. Unsound reasoning does not address my question, which stated "if we use our rationality et al correctly we will all reach the same conclusion. Viola Lee
VL, my argument clearly was that first duties are self evident by inescapability, which latter you inadvertently showed. Thus, sound reasoning will lead there. However, unsound reasoning is common. Athanasius contra mundum is proverbial. One man right is right never mind the powerful or an overwhelming majority hell-bent on error or folly. KF kairosfocus
KF:
the issue is that one is forced to appeal to duties of reason, to gain traction for arguments or in intensified form, in quarrels.
The basis of quarrels are shared, agreed upon, subjective values between the participants. Among humans, values can vary widely, which is why some quarrels have no resolution. One such pallet of values exists with respect to individualism vs collectivism. There is a demonstrable subjective spectrum that people seem to be born with, and is the basis of much of the never-ending squabbling, political and otherwise, that exists in the world. What constitutes "fairness" is another. Many people may be motivated to "duty" by their subjective foundational impulses, but the impulses vary widely. Some people (sociopaths, about 4% of the population) have no sense of "duty" at all. So you can yammer on about duty all day long, but the basis of duty differs widely, and is no pointer to any sort of objective morality. Concealed Citizen
At VL, 614, I asked KF: "you again imply here that if we use our rationality et al correctly we will all reach the same conclusion [regarding moral decisions], just as 2 + 2 does not have multiple correct answers. Is it true that that is what you are saying?" KF replied at 632, "I spoke at root level to WJM, regarding core first principles and duties of reason. In that context, simply from inescapability thus self evidence, we can and often do reach a similar conclusion. Especially if our oxen are the ones being gored." That is, his answer is "No." That is, it is possible for two people to use right reason correctly and still reach different positions on moral issues, which is what I have been trying to establish. Viola Lee
WJM, the issue is that one is forced to appeal to duties of reason, to gain traction for arguments or in intensified form, in quarrels. That inescapability is obviously not itself, narrow point, choice. The choice issue is on the substance of the appeals, that one invariably explicitly or implicitly points to pervasive duties to responsible reason, as you do. We can -- and too often do -- fail to heed the oughts of reason, such as truthfulness, logic, avoiding fallacies, warrant, wider prudence, etc but all that shows is the kind of laws of thought we are dealing with here. Laws of which way we ought to choose, but are free to act otherwise (though, with consequences). And the argument I have made is that these first duties are there, we cannot evade them, so we must acknowledge them as antecedents of and governing laws for argument. KF PS: That duties obtain, and are intelligible, warranted and objective are here seen as antecedent to questions on ultimate or proximate source, how we understand them, whether we reject them, what penalties may obtain. You have already twice ducked a specific discussion on how such duties are a natural aspect of responsible freedom, so that they are coeval with our humanity; it is pointless for me to repeat for the third time until you show responsiveness. The ultimate source is the same as that of our responsible, rational freedom, itself a requisite of your having hope of credible ability to reason, argue or know. As duties are moral, the root has been articulated on inference to best worldview explanation, only to be studiously side stepped as though they were not there. As to consequences, ponder the Categorical imperative on what happens were certain behaviours such as lying to be universal, the effects are apparent and ruinous far short of that point. kairosfocus
William J Murray Some things are impossible for God. Like drawing a square circle.
A square circle is not a thing it's gibberish. Your argumentation is flawed. Sandy
Jerry @623:
This assumes that one knows the mind of God and certain things are impossible for Him.
Some things are impossible for God. Like drawing a square circle. Some things are necessarily impossible, even for God. If God is the ground of all existence and being, AND God is inviolably good as an essential aspect of God's nature, then evil cannot exist. It is as logically impossible as God drawing a square circle or God making 2+2=5. William J Murray
KF also said:
However, in the specific circumstance of arguing to object to the binding and pervasive nature of identified first duties of reason, invariably, we find ourselves appealing to the said duties. As in fact, you have been doing.
Let me continue my good faith effort to understand you, KF. Where we are having a breakdown of my understanding is precisely where you say I have a duty to do certain things. Repeating that I appeal to duties doesn't help me understand this premise that I have such duties in the first place. I don't understand what you mean when you say "duty," so let's take this to something more easily understood. I understand, using a standard definition of "duty," what you mean when you say I have a duty to obey the laws of society. I am born into system and those duties are imposed on me whether I agree or not, whether I'm even aware of them or not. However, if there is no penalty involved for disobeying a duty, I don't see how they are "duties." If there is no penalty for disobeying a duty, they aren't duties; they are suggestions. If this is a correct framework, then when it comes to universal moral duties, who or what has imposed duties on me? What is the penalty for being derelict in my duties? In my mind, unless a duty has those two qualities, it is not a duty at all and doesn't fit the standard definition. Until you provide those two qualities which are essential to a thing being a "duty," you haven't described a duty at all; you're just insisting something is a duty. William J Murray
WJM, I will again interleave my responses: >>You’ve claimed repeatedly that I cannot violate my moral duty when it comes to existential necessities like fundamental logic (appealing to truth statements, relying on truthful behavior.) >> 1: Simply false. 2: Objectors and proponents alike are free, so we can violate duties but in so doing, find ourselves invariably appealing to said duties and their binding nature as we seek to persuade the other. (VL just gave an example, cf. just above.) >>You’re saying that there are aspects of moral duty that I cannot violate even if I try, and aspects that I can violate.>> 3: Not at all. You can indeed eventuate an is that cuts across the oughts of a situation. We may even be in such a bind that whatever we do, we cannot fully do all that we ought and must seek the lesser of evils, etc. 4: However, in the specific circumstance of arguing to object to the binding and pervasive nature of identified first duties of reason, invariably, we find ourselves appealing to the said duties. As in fact, you have been doing. 5: This built-in conflict shows the would be objector as unable to escape the binding force. As I just noted to VL:
ponder the skeptic’s inadvertent dilemma in objecting to first duties of reason: to truth, to right reason, to prudence [including warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbour, so too to fairness, to justice, etc. (For example, justice implies duties of honesty, etc.). Does s/he regard the claim that such duties are true as false, unwarranted, illogical, fallacious, imprudent etc? If so, then s/he is appealing to the binding force of said duties, just to try to object. If not, then, why object? Apart from, disliking the onward relevance and import of said duties. As a practical matter, we readily see that in fact, such objections, evasions, dismissals, etc invariably actually do appeal to their binding force, illustrating just how inescapable the duties are.
>> I’m saying you can’t have it both ways; I either can, or cannot, violate moral law.>> 6: Of course, you just appealed to the binding, ought-force, of duties to truth, right reason [LNC etc], warrant and prudence, fairness etc. This aptly illustrates my point. 7: So, we may be in breach of ought, but in this specific context, we cannot but appeal to the binding force of what we wish to overthrow. The duties are inescapable, but by the very nature of the is-ought gap reflecting power of choice, we may eventuate an is we ought not. 8: For example as just seen, in objecting to the binding force of right reason, you cannot then appeal to the binding force of LNC etc. >>My argument is that you are conflating two entirely different things, or are trying to build a bridge from one kind of thing to another entirely different kind of thing.>> 8: My argument, in this aspect is quite simple. We have a pervasive pattern in arguments and especially the intensified form, quarrelling: appeals to first duties. Even, when the point of the objector is to try to object to these duties themselves. 9: So, the objector finds her/him self inescapably appealing to what s/he would dismiss. As you just now exemplified, inadvertently. 10: On the wider issue of the is-ought gap, I have pointed out that there is an alternative view on arguments such as the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine on reasoning is-is then groundlessly leaping to ought-ought. 11: To wit, trace to the world root. We find ourselves inescapably bound by duty, even when we object, leading to recognising that inescapable first duties are truths and self evident ones. So, since we recognised a unified world, how can the gap be bridged? 12: From Hume, only in a unified root that simultaneously is source of being and of duty. 13: From Euthyphro, where too, such being must be rational and intelligible to the extent that duties are seen to be rational and responsible. 14: So, bill of requisites for root of reality and wellspring of worlds: unified, necessary [so, eternal and fabric to all possible worlds], inherently good, utterly wise, capable of world-building, etc. A familiar figure. 15: Such a root unifies is and ought from the source up by being inherently good and utterly wise, so the guillotine fails. By wisdom and goodness, duties are intelligible to the reasonably mature eye of reason, i.e. goodness is non-arbitrary. And so forth. 16: For example, trurhfulness is the habitual disposition to accurately describe entities, circumstances, states of affairs. Such keeps in contact with reality and is neither delusional nor deceptive and so oppressive. 17: Similarly, first principles of right reason are conducive to truth and to averting or correcting error. Thus, to warrant as reliable, hence showing prudence. And so forth. >> My perspective treats those two different things as two different things; existential necessities and any particular preferences.>> 18: Observance of first duties in any particular instance is not a necessity, it is a choice and a responsibility. While, cumulatively, we had better heed them to have a sustainable, thriving community or civilisation, history is replete with such failures of civilisations. A failure that is beginning with our own as we speak. >>Existential necessities do not determine particular preferences.>> 19: What we prefer has nothing to do with the matter. Save, inasmuch as we can acquire a taste for vegetables and a healthy diet. A healthy mindset is very much a struggle and a challenge. 20: Where, as was previously noted, duties are not preferences. >>Even a necessity like life (if one considers physical life an existential necessity) may not be one’s preference because people commit suicide.>> 21: A sadly ultimate case of the eventuated is being what ought not to be. >>I do not think that you consider morality, the difference between good and evil, to be preferential in nature,>> 22: It is you who have injected this novelty and have evaded the force of the counter-example that many duties arise naturally from our circumstances whatever we may prefer, e.g. duties of American citizenship, a member from birth of a particular society where one has sworn no responsible oaths [reciting pledges of allegiance as an immature child don't count, and too many have a cynical mental reservation there]. >> yet that is exactly what you are attempting to do: you are attempting to root preferential behaviors in inescapable, existential necessity>> 23: Behaviors of choice under explicit or implicit duties are consequential on the duties, they are not antecedent to them. 24: You are here putting the cart before the horse. >>(cannot avoid truthful statements or basic logical principles, therefore moral law = behaving truthfully and according to “right reason.)>> 25: Strawman. 26: I have taken pains, from the outset, to highlight an objector to the binding nature of first duties. What I pointed out is that in objecting, such a party inevitably appeals to the very binding nature of the duties s/he would undermine. 27: As you do, as VL does, as AS2 does, as Jerry -- insofar as he has objected -- has done. 28: To refute this empirical observation, simply cite or produce a case in point of objecting to said first duties of reason without implicitly appealing to their binding nature. 29: Where, attempted redefinitions of the nature of morality, being appeals to veracity of descriptions of claimed states of affairs, are appeals to duties to truth and so fail as objections. >>The fact that I can tell lies and think and act irrationally>> 30: Appeal to claimed, known, well warranted, reliable truth and to its binding nature. 31: This alone blows up your argument, and it is by no means alone. >> demonstrates >> 32: appeal to right reason, ditto. (Fails, of course.) >>these are two entirely different kinds of things you are trying turn into aspects of one thing – moral law.>> 33: Errors carried forward, undermining conclusions. >> There is no way to bridge those things except via faith.>> 34: Implicit appeal to the warrant-gap between belief and well warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief . . . i.e. soft form knowledge, the common variety. Again, fail. >>You cannot rationally say>> 35: Direct appeal to duty to right reason. Fail, again, as an objection. >>“you cannot behave otherwise”>> 36: Strawman caricature of the actual point. Of course one may choose to do what one ought not. But that does not convert whatever one chooses or prefers into what ought to have been chosen or preferred. >> and claim that inescapable behavior implies an ought to behave that way>> 37: Strawman error carried forward. 38: Inescapable appeal to the binding nature of first duties by those trying to object shows that the first duties are pervasive not that they cannot be flouted by choice to support error or wrong etc. >> or ought to be extrapolated into more oughts that are not necessary behaviors.>> 39: Strawman further carried forward. >>You can’t have it both ways, KF. Moral law is either absolute or it is not; it is either objective and cannot be escaped or it is not.>> 40: Appeal to binding nature of right reason, in intention to undermine duties to said right reason. >> You don’t get to say some of it is and some of it isn’t where and when it is convenient to your ideology.>> 41: Errors carried forward to a fundamentally flawed conclusion. KF kairosfocus
VL, 614: >> . . . you again imply here that if we use our rationality et al correctly we will all reach the same conclusion [regarding moral decisions], just as 2 + 2 does not have multiple correct answers. Is it true that that is what you are saying?>> I spoke at root level to WJM, regarding core first principles and duties of reason. In that context, simply from inescapability thus self evidence, we can and often do reach a similar conclusion. Especially if our oxen are the ones being gored. Self-evident, inescapable first truths are just that. For instance, again, the Apostle Paul, likely citing a then familiar C1 Logic 101 didactic example, on the core principle of identity:
1 Cor 14:7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. [ESV]
In our exchanges in this thread, we have all used distinct, discrete symbols and we have chained them in distinct patterns in accord with a convention [English text with ASCII coding], just to have the ability to communicate. Likewise, in doing their work from 1900 - 2021+, Quantum Theorists use similarly discrete mathematical and verbal symbols, so that they build from a base of Distinct identity. We have already seen how I derived from this PoI and possible worlds speak, that a core of mathematics will be part of the fabric of any possible world, particularly the quantities, structures and rich texture of implicit relationships of N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc, lending such a powerful universality that answers to Wigner's wonder at the effectiveness of Math in the physical sciences thus technology too. Of course, PoI carries with it as close corollaries, Law of Non-Contradiction and Law of Excluded Middle, as we may see from the U/D to OP. This shows as a pattern, how powerful and pervasive, thus inescapable, such principles are. When we turn to first duties of reason, beyond first principles of logic (which, let us recall, are a core part of the substance of the duties), we are addressing the circumstances of responsibly, rationally free but error-prone and too often ill-willed creatures in a society of such creatures, leading to certain readily observed and pervasive, telling patterns. In that context, we see as a striking and extremely common feature disagreement and its intensified form, quarrelling. Apply to the context of what for the moment can be seen as a candidate list of core, first duties of responsible reason, and bring aboard, the objector as a foil for discussion. In so doing, we are following Epictetus' pattern in dealing with a skeptic:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]
Now, similarly, ponder the skeptic's inadvertent dilemma in objecting to first duties of reason: to truth, to right reason, to prudence [including warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbour, so too to fairness, to justice, etc. (For example, justice implies duties of honesty, etc.). Does s/he regard the claim that such duties are true as false, unwarranted, illogical, fallacious, imprudent etc? If so, then s/he is appealing to the binding force of said duties, just to try to object. If not, then, why object? Apart from, disliking the onward relevance and import of said duties. As a practical matter, we readily see that in fact, such objections, evasions, dismissals, etc invariably actually do appeal to their binding force, illustrating just how inescapable the duties are. For instance, you began your objection at 614 with the attempted turnabout: >>Strawman!!!! ? My position does not at all include “arbitrarily”.>> A strawman fallacy is of course an informal fallacy, which sets up a weakened, distorted version of or substitute for an argument, then seeks to overturn that, inviting the conclusion that the argument in the main has been overturned. Thus, the attempt on your part, reflects an appeal to duty to truth not falsity. [In fact, I had spoken to a particular argument by another party and was in my rights to raise the counter argument I did.] Second, you assert that something is not the case, again implying appeals to truth, right reason, prudence etc. This pattern repeats over and over again, it is fair and well warranted comment to observe that objectors in fact show the inescapability of first duties of reason, consistently, by implicitly, inadvertently appealing to their binding nature in trying to object to them. Such arguments are obviously self-defeating. The first duties, despite many strenuous efforts to object, side track or dismiss etc, are inescapable. If inescapable, pervasive in our reasoning and on pain of discrediting rationality, inescapably true. Thus, self evident. KF kairosfocus
William J Murray Let me further examine the theological premise that God is (1) the ground of all existence and being, and that (2) God is inviolably, inherently good. Logically, this means that nothing exists that is not good. It would be literally impossible that anything can occur or even be thought or intended that is not good. Evil would be literally impossible. Evil cannot be the deprivation of the good because there would not be anything that exists that can be in any way “deprived” of God, not in any part, volume, intensity or density. If you agree with the premises, care to challenge the logic?
What do you smoke? Where did you lost free will from your "i-logical" ecuation? Sandy
VL, passed by again, while looking for green screen tutorials, of all things. I intend to come back to you later. Meanwhile, I clip context from my response to someone else, whivh you snipped from without that context:
I turn to the next part, the UNLESS . . . suggesting you have captured a sole alternative. Here:
If morality is reconsidered in terms of an actual, inescapable aspect of human nature – free will, which is inescapably the pursuit of that which we prefer, then “evil” is objectively, for all humans (because we all use free will to pursue that which we prefer) the deprivation of that which one prefers. This means that we inescapable pursue the good (that which we prefer) and consider deprivation or lack of that which we prefer to be evil.
The definition of freedom is tendentious. I draw attention to my remarks above on the pivot of freedom, power of effective choice, from 555 above . . . [clip etc follow]
I suggest, that is specific, material context for my remark. KF kairosfocus
re 627: KF, a nice short answer to my question at 614 would be appreciated, and bring some clarity. Viola Lee
WJM, it is inherent in the concept of morality that one may contravene what s/he ought to do. From OP on, I have spoken in that context. What we cannot do, is remake the first duties as we please, no more than we can remake the principle of identity etc. KF kairosfocus
VL, I responded to a specific, cited context. In due course I will further respond to you. KF kairosfocus
See the first two sentences of the OP.
I had read them. jerry
See the first two sentences of the OP. Viola Lee
Kf did not equate natural law with gravitation in OP. Did he do it some place else? jerry
If you agree with the premises,
What is the premise
It would be literally impossible that anything can occur or even be thought or intended that is not good.
This assumes that one knows the mind of God and certain things are impossible for Him. Suppose this God chose for the following option to exist, an option for others to be created with the possibility to know him directly and experience the “good” but these creations could also be deprived of this good because they have the option to chose this deprivation freely. How to provide this option? Then this God created the best of all possible worlds for this to happen. One in which His creations exercised their free will to choose. jerry
Which of the following options are most likely to get Joe to do x if he doesn't want to: 1) using "right reason" stemming from sound moral duties, 2) appealing to Joe's emotions, 3) pointing a gun at Joe's head? What society is not ultimately enforced by threat of violence and/or imprisonment? Morality, law, "right reason" (as opposed to fundamental logical principles) all depend on capacity (power) and will to instantiate in any way in the physical world, because they are not existential absolutes. William J Murray
Jerry @617, Look at the title of the post and KF defining what he is talking about when he says "natural law." He uses the example of gravitation. Gravitation is a law that cannot be violated. Gravitation works exactly the same for everyone in any society; no one is immune from it or gets special dispensation, nor does it matter how cunning, moral, or powerful you are. Yes, there are aspects (3 of which I listed) of human nature (and perhaps all sentient life) that are as inescapable as the law of gravity. Moral behavior is not one of them. Your definition, "We then call these constructive objectives, moral objectives and actions that lead to them, moral. And the studies of the topic something called morality." Who gets to define "constructive?" Constructive in what way, for what purpose? One might say, "for the success of a society." Who gets to define the parameters of success, and why? William J Murray
Jerry, it is exactly the conflation of these ideas about "laws" that KF slides around. See my question to him at 618 above. Viola Lee
Let me further examine the theological premise that God is (1) the ground of all existence and being, and that (2) God is inviolably, inherently good. Logically, this means that nothing exists that is not good. It would be literally impossible that anything can occur or even be thought or intended that is not good. Evil would be literally impossible. Evil cannot be the deprivation of the good because there would not be anything that exists that can be in any way "deprived" of God, not in any part, volume, intensity or density. If you agree with the premises, care to challenge the logic? William J Murray
WJM says to KF: "My argument is that you are conflating two entirely different things, or are trying to build a bridge from one kind of thing to another entirely different kind of thing. .... You can’t have it both ways, KF. Moral law is either absolute or it is not; it is either objective and cannot be escaped or it is not. You don’t get to say some of it is and some of it isn’t where and when it is convenient to your ideology." Although I am not arguing from the same perspective as WJm in numerous ways, I agree strongly with the above quotes. That is why my question to KF above is to the point:
But you again imply here that if we use our rationality et al correctly we will all reach the same conclusion, just as 2 + 2 does not have multiple correct answers. Is it true that that is what you are saying?
Viola Lee
I defined morality in #580. Very crudely but applicable
We then call these constructive objectives, moral objectives and actions that lead to them, moral. And the studies of the topic something called morality.
We always have the freedom to violate these constructive objectives. Who said we didn’t. I doubt Kf did. Are we quibbling over grammar again? For example, is the term “law” being used in very different ways. There are the laws of physics.There are natural laws that affect each species but many are not as absolute as physical laws since most species are known to violate them in some instances. Humans violate them the most. Then there are the laws of man which are mainly to protect humans from violations of natural laws. Use common definitions. jerry
Sandy @613, Other people are not bound by the limits of your imagination or ideological beliefs when it comes to how they think, what they feel, what views they hold, and how they internally process their experiences. But, I realize that's virtually impossible for you, and people like you (KF, for example), to comprehend. This is why you think you can mind read others and have no problem assigning them their beliefs and motivations. William J Murray
KF said:
No-one has suggested that morality is anything but an aspect of responsible, rational freedom. That is why we can eventuate an is that breaches ought. But that has not erased that ought is what should have been done.
Sure you have. You've claimed repeatedly that I cannot violate my moral duty when it comes to existential necessities like fundamental logic (appealing to truth statements, relying on truthful behavior.) You're saying that there are aspects of moral duty that I cannot violate even if I try, and aspects that I can violate. I'm saying you can't have it both ways; I either can, or cannot, violate moral law. My argument is that you are conflating two entirely different things, or are trying to build a bridge from one kind of thing to another entirely different kind of thing. My perspective treats those two different things as two different things; existential necessities and any particular preferences. Existential necessities do not determine particular preferences. Even a necessity like life (if one considers physical life an existential necessity) may not be one's preference because people commit suicide. I do not think that you consider morality, the difference between good and evil, to be preferential in nature, yet that is exactly what you are attempting to do: you are attempting to root preferential behaviors in inescapable, existential necessity (cannot avoid truthful statements or basic logical principles, therefore moral law = behaving truthfully and according to "right reason.) The fact that I can tell lies and think and act irrationally demonstrates these are two entirely different kinds of things you are trying turn into aspects of one thing - moral law. There is no way to bridge those things except via faith. You cannot rationally say "you cannot behave otherwise" and claim that inescapable behavior implies an ought to behave that way or ought to be extrapolated into more oughts that are not necessary behaviors. You can't have it both ways, KF. Moral law is either absolute or it is not; it is either objective and cannot be escaped or it is not. You don't get to say some of it is and some of it isn't where and when it is convenient to your ideology. William J Murray
KF writes, "The idea that one may arbitrarily determine good and evil for him or her self is no better warranted than the notion that one may determine arithmetic’s rules or logic’s rules for oneself." Strawman!!!! :-) My position does not at all include "arbitrarily". But you again imply here that if we use our rationality et al correctly we will all reach the same conclusion, just as 2 + 2 does not have multiple correct answers. Is it true that that is what you are saying? Viola Lee
William J Murray So, the idea that morality is an inescapable, existential law of some sort comparable to a physical law is self-evidently false because we can think and behave immorally (wrt any particular list of supposed immoral behaviors) UNLESS...
Firstly,morality is an inescapable law,because even when you broke the moral law , you concede that (at least in your mind if not in front of other people ) . Secondly, we cannot live up to our conscience expectations. Very strange, isn't it? People have 2 type of reactions: some start to ignore their conscience(and become materialists,darwinists and other kind of atheists , others believe that inner voice, start to search help and fight to become moral beings. Ofcourse, to became a moral being only with your powers , it's totally imposible.Quest, struggle and humility is on people ,but to become moral is on God to give. Sandy
WJM, I passed by and caught:
the idea that morality is an inescapable, existential law of some sort comparable to a physical law is self-evidently false because we can think and behave immorally (wrt any particular list of supposed immoral behaviors)
WJM, strawman. No-one has suggested that morality is anything but an aspect of responsible, rational freedom. That is why we can eventuate an is that breaches ought. But that has not erased that ought is what should have been done. The physical world is dynamic-stochastic, it is ruled by laws of mechanical necessity and/or chance. Agency, the self-moved, intelligent, enconscienced, is a different order of being and so has a different nature. That has been on the table from the beginning. I clip OP:
. . . following Aquinas, we can see that arguably there is an intelligible core of law coeval with our responsible, rational, significantly free nature. This built-in law turns on inescapable, thus self-evident truths of justice and moral government, which rightly govern what courts may rule or parliaments legislate, per the premise of justice moderated by requisites of feasible order in a world that must reckon with the hardness of men’s hearts. Where, we are thus duty bound, morally governed creatures. Hence, we come to the sense of duty attested to by sound conscience [“conscience is a law”], that breathes fire into what would otherwise be inert statements in dusty tomes. We may term these, by extension, the Ciceronian First Duties of Reason . . .
That we may disregard ought is a proof of our freedom, not something that brings oughtness, duty into doubt. The way you structured this is distorting. I turn to the next part, the UNLESS . . . suggesting you have captured a sole alternative. Here:
If morality is reconsidered in terms of an actual, inescapable aspect of human nature – free will, which is inescapably the pursuit of that which we prefer, then “evil” is objectively, for all humans (because we all use free will to pursue that which we prefer) the deprivation of that which one prefers. This means that we inescapable pursue the good (that which we prefer) and consider deprivation or lack of that which we prefer to be evil.
The definition of freedom is tendentious. I draw attention to my remarks above on the pivot of freedom, power of effective choice, from 555 above (which you dismissed and evidently did not seriously engage):
15: So, duty comes from freedom manifesting a rational, self-moved [living, en-souled, conscience guided] nature. That is a – reflexive, self-moved agent A b – may act on contingent possibilities C1 to CN, c – which are rival and practically exhaustive d – of which Ci and Cj are the focal, best choices [by whatever relevant criteria] e – where, the opportunity cost of Ci is Cj foregone and the converse f – where too, it is possible to choose the worse and to be under the impression that it is the better g – so, the matter of responsible rational choice as to which of Ci and Cj to eventuate becomes pivotal h – we thus see the is-ought gap, as ought implies say Cj is better warranted but selection of Ci remains possible and is often in fact taken. (There is even the possibility that Ck may have been a better alternative by whatever criteria) i – the concept of freedom is here focussed in representative agent A’s power to identify Ci vs Cj [as opposed to Ck] from C1 to Cn, and to then eventuate whichever is favoured. j – selection criteria and evaluation as well as power to choose are pervaded with rational choice, criteria, values, and a sense of duty often attested to by the familiar voice of conscience [especially when severe risks and consequences are potentially on the line and avoidable ignorance or warped thinking can lead to a bias towards ruin] k – in this context, duty in the first instance is the conscience-attested voice of ought. l – Ought that needs not be eventuated but unless it is habitually implemented, given severe risks of various kinds, personal ruin, ruin of close valued agents [family, colleagues], ruin of community, ruin of civilisation, ruin of human existence may follow, especially id habitually poorly choosing agent A becomes the representative pattern. m – however, ought is not mere consequentialism, consequence to self, family, neighbour, community, civilisation and world were habitual patterns of abuse and folly to be established and become the norm are actually an expression of a key criterion for testing oughtness, the categorical imperative or sustainability principle and the linked civil peace of justice, with due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. n – where also we see ability to hypothesis and evaluate chains of likely or possible consequences are part of the framework of rational agency, with the voice of duty counselling that choice towards ruin is unjust, imprudent, irrational etc. o – further, we notice that the logic of probable implication and possible consequence emerges, in a context where the power of a non-factual contingency Ci/j/k to lead to true or probably true or possibly true consequences were worlds i/ j/k eventuated through choice, is pivotal. Duty to reason, warrant, truth, are embedded. p – where, duty also comes through as multi-dimensional, to self, family, community, civilisation, world, where there may be clashes and choices of lesser of evils thus need to make prudent compromises that ameliorate intensity and/or extent of evil but cannot eliminate such. Evil, being regarded as frustration or perversion of a valuable or good thing from its proper often naturally evident end. For example, human thriving pervades the above. q – and duty may well point onward, as we see good vs evil surfacing, thence the issues of answering Euthyphro and Hume, that the ultimate locus of the good and duty is in the root of our own contingent reality. r – that is, we have a bill of requisites for such a root, consistent with the said first duties: a characterisation of the root agent, A_0: inherently good and utterly wise, necessary, maximally great being capable of causing and sustaining worlds. s – such A_0 would be finitely remote, at beginning of our and other worlds. Also, as capable, good and wise to maximal extent, bridges is and ought in the root of reality. So, ought is non-arbitrary and will be partly intelligible [we are limited in our rationality]. It is also grounded, pace Hume’s is-is then poof ought-ought. Ought comes from one and the same root as is, on this candidate. Where, as necessary, as a candidate, either impossible or actual as can be drawn out. Where, there is no good reason to hold as impossible. t – wisdom, goodness etc also point to personality, person not impersonal entity or force. u – and more 16: These constitute a drawing out and explanation of how things tie together not a proof. The act of proving is itself riddled with appeals to said first duties. 17: Truly first principles and duties are antecedent to and pervade the fabric of reasoned thought, speech and action, thus proof. They cannot be proved as they are how we prove and see as proved to adequate degree. They can, however be acknowledged as inescapable, inescapably true and self-evident on pain of absurdity on attempted denial or dismissal.
In short, power of choice does not impose that each may arbitrarily set up chosen preferences, even one's values are in part a choice subject to oughtness. Core duties can be identified on inescapable, intelligible first principles and duties of reason, which is precisely the pivot of the OP. The idea that one may arbitrarily determine good and evil for him or her self is no better warranted than the notion that one may determine arithmetic's rules or logic's rules for oneself. Indeed, as Math is about logic of structure and quantity and duty to right reason involves core logic they are connected. (Note, self evidence of first duties is manifest from inescapability.) KF kairosfocus
KF writes, " whoever said “outside”? Built-in coeval with humanity, bound up in our nature as responsible, rational, significantly free creatures is the opposite of external or arbitrarily imposed .... We are truest to ourselves when we acknowledge the nature and responsibilities of being what we are.." Yes, and I had written, "but my “duty”, although I don’t use that word, is to myself: to bring out and exercise those aspects of my self that feel most important and useful to me," and previously I have identified rationality, compassion (a broad term representing caring for others and for the common good of the societies in which we live), and free will (limited in various ways) as the aspects I should exercise. Therefore, we agree with each other! :-) Viola Lee
So, the idea that morality is an inescapable, existential law of some sort comparable to a physical law is self-evidently false because we can think and behave immorally (wrt any particular list of supposed immoral behaviors) UNLESS ... If morality is reconsidered in terms of an actual, inescapable aspect of human nature - free will, which is inescapably the pursuit of that which we prefer, then "evil" is objectively, for all humans (because we all use free will to pursue that which we prefer) the deprivation of that which one prefers. This means that we inescapable pursue the good (that which we prefer) and consider deprivation or lack of that which we prefer to be evil. William J Murray
So, if morality was an inescapable law of human nature like gravity is an inescapable physical law, we would be incapable of behaving or thinking in an immoral way. Free will cannot parse the difference because we are not free to violate physical laws; how would we be free to break moral ones if they are as inescapable as the physical? One might argue that we are free to attempt to break physical laws. We can try to fly off a cliff and then we will suffer the consequences; that is a false comparison. We cannot actually do anything that violates the law of gravity. If we compare jumping off the cliff to behaving immorally, then one would actually have to be able to fly off the cliff in order for that comparison to match the capacity to actually behave immorally. I would actually have to be able to violate physical laws in order for it to compare with my supposed ability to violate inescapable moral law. William J Murray
There are several things to consider here. Is "human nature" rooted in the so-called external physical world and its particular patterns, which we refer to as physical laws and biology? Is human nature rooted in the basic patterns of society? Until you establish and agree on some basic fundamentals about human nature, there's not even a meaningful discussion to be had. 1. Orderly thought and experience (fundamental logic, which includes discerning true statements from false and the basic principles of logic; math & geometry). 2. Free will (not free action), which is universally applied to increase development of preference 3. All experience occurs in mind. Now, which of these basic qualities of human nature - perhaps all sentient beings - directly rely on or are established by biology or what we call the natural law of the physical world? I think that most would here would agree that none of them are because they are immaterial in nature and cannot be produced by the physical world. The physical world of matter does not have these qualities to give. In the OP, KF says that the natural tendency of human societies is towards a lawless oligarchy; I suggest that is necessarily untrue. Let's look at a common definition of law:
the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
Now, what we call "natural laws" seem to be utterly impartial wrt the social status of any human being; it's not like the king of a country is less bound by gravity than a serf. Even the most rudimentary society has rules, even if that rule is please the big man with the club or suffer whatever penalty he chooses. All societies, even brutish oligarchies, have rules, implicit or explicit. What is that rule? Might makes right. If the laws of human nature were like physical laws, this kind of arrangement would be mentally impossible. Distribution of social might or influence would be equal among all members just like gravity. It would be impossible to treat others in any way that violated any inherent law of human nature and how that law dictated we act. If morality was like a physical law, it would be impossible to behave immorally. One might say that is where free will comes in, but our free will cannot help us in physically violating physical laws. If morality was a mental law like a gravity is a physical law, we would not even be able to think immoral thoughts. Similarly, if one was rooted in the other, we could not even imagine doing things that violated physical law. I could not imagine, for instance, walking through a brick wall. If our moral duties, such as to truth and right reason, were as "inescapable" as KF claims, and "like" physical laws, everyone would be incapable of telling lies or using improper reasoning in the same manner that everyone is incapable of unaided flight or walking through walls. However, there is human behavior and fundamental social "rules" that cannot be escaped; we use our free will to pursue that which we prefer in any way we prefer inasmuch as we can have the power to instantiate physically. We prefer other people behave the way we prefer and that society be constructed in a way that suits our preference. Those that have or gain the power to instantiate their preferences do so to whatever capacity they can, which inevitably leads to oligarchy, or a small group of people ruling a community. In any sizable group, there will be a few that have more capacity and willingness to impose their preferences on the others. There is no getting around this (speaking from an "normal" mental & external physical world perspective.) Furthermore, the idea that "evil" is a "privation of good" is irreconcilable with the idea of an inherently good God that is the ground of all being and existence. I agree that such a ground is necessary, but if it was inherently good, nothing that exists could be deprived of its goodness, because that would mean depriving something of God. The only thing that can be logically understood as the "deprivation" of God would be nothing. Move God out of an area, and nothing exists there because God is the ground of being and existence. "Nothing" does not exist. Therefore, "evil" does not exist other than as a subjective counterpart to "what I prefer." This supports VL's perspective, which I share, that sees God as ambivalent or disinterested in such things, if such terms can even be applied to "the ground of existence." William J Murray
VL, >>I don’t believe in this “duty” model either.>> 1: Appeal to truth, in the guise, controversial so not credibly so. Actually, every worldview option is controversial, and they jointly face comparative difficulties. Also, I believe, but I have no credibility fails at start-gates, the gap between belief and knowledge much less moral certainty yawns open: you need a bridge of warrant. >> Biological and cultural forces are undoubtedly a factor in how I come to my beliefs and how I act, >> 2: But do not account for the compelling forces of logic, fact, truth, justice and other duties. You were in the room when I pointed out that we are deeply conditioned, often to "automaticity" regarding the addition facts and times tables, but such is utterly irrelevant to their compelling truth and soundness. >>but my “duty”, although I don’t use that word, is to myself: to bring out and exercise those aspects of my self that feel most important and useful to me.>> 3: Turn this around, to the one who imagines that preying on little black children on the way home from school, drawing pleasure from raping and murdering them, is what is most important and useful. 4: You have failed to account for the nature of first duties and fall to a version of subjectivism, relativism, psychologism and nominalism. >> I think I take an existential perspective that ultimately my choices define me,>> 5: Being human, intelligent, rational, conscience guarded etc are antecedent to choices we make AS these things; where, we are contingent creatures and do not credibly originate responsible rational freedom or the duties of such freedom, which I drew out a few days back in responding to WJM. >> although my choices take place in the larger context of my holistic larger self, which includes the biological and learned components of who I am. My choices take place within that larger context: I choose to be certain ways>> 6: Much the same. >> but I don’t have a “duty”, which implies some outside “something” to whom or what I have a duty to. That latter “outside something” is what I don’t believe exists.>> 7: whoever said "outside"? Built-in coeval with humanity, bound up in our nature as responsible, rational, significantly free creatures is the opposite of external or arbitrarily imposed. 8: Antecedent, yes indeed, we are contingent and not self-explanatory, but not an alien imposition. We are truest to ourselves when we acknowledge the nature and responsibilities of being what we are. 9: And, of course positing what one believes does not justify contents of said beliefs. With, a side order of psychologism with its self-referential issues. KF kairosfocus
SA2 &/or VL et al: the onward objection will predictably be, but I am no materialist. Now, you see the relevance of the fellow traveller issue. You had a full day more or less to correct a gross error but did not. KF kairosfocus
SA2, It is interesting to see the onward side-steps and projections, Again, on points: >>There is no doubt that we have many behaviours that we adopt, and which would make us very uncomfortable if we behaved in violation of these. Things like telling the truth, or being respectful, not stealing, etc.>> 1: In short, conscience. 2: Of course, you imagine that conscience is socialised, that we are at birth tabula rasa, morally speaking -- born amoral. Any adult who recognises that children from very early show moral struggle will reconsider that. 3: The onward implications of amorality, radical relativism and emotivism speak, too. 4: For example, if we are tabula rasa at birth, why the high dudgeon over those conditioned to think slavery may be a misfortune but it is an ages old universal, perfectly legal institution, or that people of colour happen not to have faced the severe selection pressure that makes Aryans a superior breed [marked by skin colour conducive to harvesting vitamin D], or that the superior has a right to eliminate the unfit and along the way to subjugate and use such as a forced labour workforce. 5: The amorality speaks for itself and its absurdity refutes it. 6: i repeat the regrettably real test case, with amplification: it is self-evidently evil to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young black [v dark skinned in fact] child for one's pleasure. >>We call these our moral values.>> 7: Nominalism, having explained away morality and overlooked the monstrous absurdity, one dismisses duty as a label for a psycho-socially conditioned guilt feeling. >>There is little doubt that the majority of people must share these values if we hope to live in a reasonably stable society. But that is the nature of group dynamics.>> 8: An attempt to duck having to explain away how a particularly common delusion can be pivotal to our thriving as social creatures. 9: That points to the grand delusion tainting credibility of mind challenge. So, is YOUR mind somehow poof the exception or are YOU also simply reflecting your social conditioning? (That is, self-referential incoherence, unsurprisingly, emerges. A sure sign of gross error.) >>As small children we all lie, cheat and steal.>> 10: Defensive projection by hasty, reckless generalisation. 11: More sound, would be to highlight that from childhood we find ourselves in moral struggle between the is of our behaviour and the sensed, compelling force and voice of ought lurking within. So, whose report do we believe, the voice of ought or the voice of Freud et al on how that is strict potty training writ large? >>And it is reasonable to assume>> 12: Notice, the appeal to first duties of reason. Sorry, that's your potty training speaking, or else it is a sign of the precise inescapability you would dismiss. >> that if we never suffered any consequences for doing so, we would continue to do so.>> 13: You clearly are unaware of dutiful children who strive to be good and true beyond whatever forces may obtain in their surroundings. >> But there are consequences. There is feedback. There is reinforcement. These behaviours become conditioned reflexes.>> 13: Confirming the potty training fallacy in action. >> We can decide not to obey them, but it would not be easy.>> 14: And again. Rather, it is hard to resist fashionable fallacies even when long past sell-by dates, but a responsible thinker will do so regardless of the determined voyage of folly. >>Kairosfocus completely ignores well understood behavioural/psychological dynamics in favour of some objective, outside force. Invoking this outside force simply is not warranted.>> 15; Of course, we yet again see appeals to first duties, with locus of failure to heed such projected to the other. 16: Pardon, the omission, for I thought the ghosts of Freud, Skinner et al long since exorcised. Psychologism is such a manifest self-referentially incoherent failure that discredits reason, knowledge and theories -- including those of the psychologisers -- that it has been past sell-by date for decades. 17: I now clip my remarks on such from decades back, as updated & with notes, going back to when such were still hanging on by a finger nail or two, as part of the wider evolutionary materialistic ideology:
a: Evolutionary materialism argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature; from hydrogen to humans by undirected chance and necessity. b: Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws of chance and/or mechanical necessity acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of happenstance initial circumstances.
(This is physicalism. This view covers both the forms where (a) the mind and the brain are seen as one and the same thing, and those where (b) somehow mind emerges from and/or "supervenes" on brain, perhaps as a result of sophisticated and complex software looping. The key point, though is as already noted: physical causal closure -- the phenomena that play out across time, without residue, are in principle deducible or at least explainable up to various random statistical distributions and/or mechanical laws, from prior physical states. Such physical causal closure, clearly, implicitly discounts or even dismisses the causal effect of concept formation and reasoning then responsibly deciding, in favour of specifically physical interactions in the brain-body control loop; indeed, some mock the idea of -- in their view -- an "obviously" imaginary "ghost" in the meat-machine. [There is also some evidence from simulation exercises, that accuracy of even sensory perceptions may lose out to utilitarian but inaccurate ones in an evolutionary competition. "It works" does not warrant the inference to "it is true."] )
c: But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this meat-machine picture. So, we rapidly arrive at Crick's claim in his The Astonishing Hypothesis (1994): what we subjectively experience as "thoughts," "reasoning" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as the unintended by-products of the blind natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains that (as the Smith Model illustrates) serve as cybernetic controllers for our bodies. d: These underlying driving forces are viewed as being ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance shaped by forces of selection ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism]. And, remember, the focal issue to such minds -- notice, this is a conceptual analysis made and believed by the materialists! -- is the physical causal chains in a control loop, not the internalised "mouth-noises" that may somehow sit on them and come along for the ride.
(Save, insofar as such "mouth noises" somehow associate with or become embedded as physically instantiated signals or maybe codes in such a loop. [How signals, languages and codes originate and function in systems in our observation of such origin -- i.e by design -- tends to be pushed to the back-burner and conveniently forgotten. So does the point that a signal or code takes its significance precisely from being an intelligently focused on, observed or chosen and significant alternative from a range of possibilities that then can guide decisive action.])
e: For instance, Marxists commonly derided opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismissed qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? Should we not ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is little more than yet another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? And -- as we saw above -- would the writings of a Crick be any more than the firing of neurons in networks in his own brain? f: For further instance, we may take the favourite whipping-boy of materialists: religion. Notoriously, they often hold that belief in God is not merely cognitive, conceptual error, but delusion. Borderline lunacy, in short. But, if such a patent "delusion" is so utterly widespread, even among the highly educated, then it "must" -- by the principles of evolution -- somehow be adaptive to survival, whether in nature or in society. And so, this would be a major illustration of the unreliability of our conceptual reasoning ability, on the assumption of evolutionary materialism. g: Turning the materialist dismissal of theism around, evolutionary materialism itself would be in the same leaky boat. For, the sauce for the goose is notoriously just as good a sauce for the gander, too . . . . j: Therefore, though materialists will often try to pointedly ignore or angrily brush aside the issue, we may freely argue: if such evolutionary materialism is true, then (i) our consciousness, (ii) the "thoughts" we have, (iii) the conceptualised beliefs we hold, (iv) the reasonings we attempt based on such and (v) the "conclusions" and "choices" (a.k.a. "decisions") we reach -- without residue -- must be produced and controlled by blind forces of chance happenstance and mechanical necessity that are irrelevant to "mere" ill-defined abstractions such as: purpose or truth, or even logical validity.
(NB: The conclusions of such "arguments" may still happen to be true, by astonishingly lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” or "warranted" them. It seems that rationality itself has thus been undermined fatally on evolutionary materialistic premises. Including that of Crick et al. Through, self-reference leading to incoherence and utter inability to provide a cogent explanation of our commonplace, first-person experience of reasoning and rational warrant for beliefs, conclusions and chosen paths of action. Reduction to absurdity and explanatory failure in short.)
k: And, if materialists then object: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must immediately note that -- as the fate of Newtonian Dynamics between 1880 and 1930 shows -- empirical support is not equivalent to establishing the truth of a scientific theory. For, at any time, one newly discovered countering fact can in principle overturn the hitherto most reliable of theories. (And as well, we must not lose sight of this: in science, one is relying on the legitimacy of the reasoning process to make the case that scientific evidence provides reasonable albeit provisional warrant for one's beliefs etc. Scientific reasoning is not independent of reasoning.) l: Worse, in the case of origins science theories, we simply were not there to directly observe the facts of the remote past, so origins sciences are even more strongly controlled by assumptions and inferences than are operational scientific theories. So, we contrast the way that direct observations of falling apples and orbiting planets allow us to test our theories of gravity . . .
18: The self-referential incoherence should be manifest. Psychologism attempting to explain away morality as conditioning of children refutes itself. KF kairosfocus
Viola Lee On our side issue of spelling vs grammar, google “is spelling considered part of grammar.” I think you will find the answer is no.
I searched and your godgle returned as results few words: snobbish,arrogant,smug.How is that possible?
I said that I don’t believe that there is an “outside something” to which I have a duty. There may be an “outside something” that is in some way responsible for, or involved, in the existence of the universe, life, and non-material aspects of human nature such as consciousness, but that has no interest(or is even capable of “interest”) in the particularities of what human beings do, including duties or specific moral standards.
You have no clue what imply that ,right? In your brain there is no real difference between God and Flying Spaggeti Monster or any cartoon character so your talking points have no meaning. Just empty words . Maybe you don't know what is the definition of God. Sandy
There is no doubt that we have many behaviours that we adopt, and which would make us very uncomfortable if we behaved in violation of these. Things like telling the truth, or being respectful, not stealing, etc. We call these our moral values. There is little doubt that the majority of people must share these values if we hope to live in a reasonably stable society. But that is the nature of group dynamics.
So you say. But just because you can say so doesn't make it so. It very well could be that we are all intelligently designed to know right from wrong. And because of that we seek others who also understand this design.
As small children we all lie, cheat and steal.
You aren't anyone to make such a broad charge.
And it is reasonable to assume that if we never suffered any consequences for doing so, we would continue to do so.
That isn't reasonable at all. That works for sociopaths. But not for regular people. Many find it very comforting being honest.
Kairosfocus completely ignores well understood behavioural/psychological dynamics in favour of some objective, outside force. Invoking this outside force simply is not warranted.
Given the overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design it is warranted. Just because you are an willfully ignorant Canadian who is ignorant of science and denies reality, doesn't change that. ET
Doubter, it doesn't seem that Sandy even actually read your post, much less the article. Viola Lee
Sandy@582 "Nope, you were tought that ." I note a singular lack of any indication of having read the article or any attempts at refutation of it's many examples of prehuman fossils and tools and the like. How about something along those lines? doubter
On our side issue of spelling vs grammar, google "is spelling considered part of grammar." I think you will find the answer is no. Viola Lee
Sandy, I said that I don't believe that there is an "outside something" to which I have a duty. There may be an "outside something" that is in some way responsible for, or involved, in the existence of the universe, life, and non-material aspects of human nature such as consciousness, but that has no interest (or is even capable of "interest") in the particularities of what human beings do, including duties or specific moral standards. That is very different than implying materialism. Viola Lee
Viola Lee Sandy, I have never talked about evolution on this forum. I’ve made it clear that I am not a materialist, and that I don’t claim to know how the universe, life, or human nature got to be here and to be as they are.
:))) C'mon.You sleep with Darwin's books under your pillow.
My choices take place within that larger context: I choose to be certain ways but I don’t have a “duty”, which implies some outside “something” to whom or what I have a duty to. That latter “outside something” is what I don’t believe exists.
Well...what were you saying about materialism? :)))
Also, I was pointing out a spelling error, not an error in grammar.
:) Spelling is part of the grammar. I'm very disappointed ...I thought you have a duty to grammar. :))) Sandy
There is no doubt that we have many behaviours that we adopt, and which would make us very uncomfortable if we behaved in violation of these. Things like telling the truth, or being respectful, not stealing, etc. We call these our moral values. There is little doubt that the majority of people must share these values if we hope to live in a reasonably stable society. But that is the nature of group dynamics. As small children we all lie, cheat and steal. And it is reasonable to assume that if we never suffered any consequences for doing so, we would continue to do so. But there are consequences. There is feedback. There is reinforcement. These behaviours become conditioned reflexes. We can decide not to obey them, but it would not be easy. Kairosfocus completely ignores well understood behavioural/psychological dynamics in favour of some objective, outside force. Invoking this outside force simply is not warranted. Steve Alten2
I don't believe in this "duty" model either. Biological and cultural forces are undoubtedly a factor in how I come to my beliefs and how I act, but my "duty", although I don't use that word, is to myself: to bring out and exercise those aspects of my self that feel most important and useful to me. I think I take an existential perspective that ultimately my choices define me, although my choices take place in the larger context of my holistic larger self, which includes the biological and learned components of who I am. My choices take place within that larger context: I choose to be certain ways but I don't have a "duty", which implies some outside "something" to whom or what I have a duty to. That latter "outside something" is what I don't believe exists. Viola Lee
Well, if nothing else, this thread has crystallized what the fundamental distinction is between my worldview and a broad range of worldviews that KF represents. On the one hand, there is the view that one is born or created into a set of circumstances to which one has inherent and/or extraneous obligations and duties. Whether to a creator God, an objective, external reality with natural laws, biology, or parents & a social structure with laws, or whatever else. This is why KF (and others) sees duties as inherently coexistent with inescapable aspects of existence and or aspects of their existence they consider to be what constitutes "reality." IOW, by this model, we have duties both inherent and extraneous because of what how we see reality and our position within that reality. It is the above, general concept of existence and reality that confers upon existential necessities, like basic logic and reliance on truthful interactions with others, the concept of inherent duties to those things. It is how existence and reality is organized and thought of in those minds at a very basic level. I call this the "servant" or "victim" perspective. People may not call it or think about themselves as being a servant or a victim, but that's essentially what it is when your duties are assigned to you by circumstances, be those circumstances existential necessities, natural law, God's will or society. You are either the willing servant of those circumstances and so have accepted your duties, or you are the unwilling victim of those circumstances, your duties coerced upon you and enforced extraneously via some threat of penalty. I don't see my existence or reality that way. I'm not the servant or victim of anything, and so I have no inherent or extraneous duties. I'm a 100% free, sovereign being. And so, under my perspective, using basic logic and discerning true statements from false at a fundamental level do not represent any duties or obligations whatsoever. William J Murray
Up above, Sandy write to me, "The evolutionists are so sharp when it’s about grammar. :))" Sandy, I have never talked about evolution on this forum. I've made it clear that I am not a materialist, and that I don't claim to know how the universe, life, or human nature got to be here and to be as they are. Also, I was pointing out a spelling error, not an error in grammar. Viola Lee
Up above, Sandy write to me, "The evolutionists are so sharp when it’s about grammar. :))" Sandy, I have never talked about evolution on this forum. I've made it clear that I am not a materialist, and that I don't claim to know how the universe, life, or human nature got to be here and to be as they are. Viola Lee
Oh yes, SA2 again, 567: >>Kairosfocus falsely claims>> 1: Appeal to truth, towards inferring that my argument is unsound. >> that whenever we make an argument that we are appealing to one of his first duties.>> 2: Just shown, right at the outset. 3: BTW, usually, appeals are to multiple duties. >> We are not appealing to any objective duty,>> 4: Appeal to duty to truth, again, here by denial of a claim. 5: Who is being empirically falsified here? Do you not see that inescapably, even in objecting, you are appealing to what you would reject? >> we are appealing to his desire to be honest.>> 6: Notice, slanting of language by studious side-stepping a key term: sense of DUTY to truthfulness, part of honesty; in turn, part of duty to fairness and justice with overtones of duty to neighbour, sound conscience and even prudence [honesty as best policy]. 7: Wilson, Art of Rhetorique, again . . . . >> A desire that was instilled in him by his parents, and reinforced through societal interactions throughout the years.>> 8: A classic appeal to cultural relativisation. Lessee, 2 + 3 = 5 "was instilled in him by his parents, and reinforced through societal interactions throughout the years." Does that render 2 + 3 = 5 less objective or even undermine that shocking claim, that it is self-evident? 9: Patently not. Society, starting with family can act to reinforce truth, and given the consequences of a hypothetical society of untruth, by far and away most of what a society enforces has to be true and reliable. 10: Cretans always lie cannot be true, they lie when they see an advantage but must mostly tell truth, starting with to themselves and those they care about. >> The fact that honesty was “beaten” into us from an early age is not evidence of it being objective,>> 11: Actually, if something is a major issue connected to survival of the community, consensus might just be a clue that it is so. Not 100% but a sign. We have been indoctrinated with selective hyperskepticism. >>it is the exact opposite. If it was truly objective, there would be no need to have it “beaten” into us.>> 12: Oh, like the times tables? Lessee, 7 x 9 = 63, 8 x 9 = 72 etc were drummed into us through years of repetition, so not objectively true. BZZZZT, false. 13: Houston, we have detected a fallacy. 14: To be human is to be tempted to bad moral habits so there is a perfectly good reason why sound social training would reinforce habits of straight behaviour and honesty. 15: Do you see here, what you may be confessing by projection? KF kairosfocus
PS: For record, a reminder on the bankruptcy of the widely promoted relativism etc:
Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.
kairosfocus
SA2, 569, as catching my eye: >> Yes, when we are debating someone we are appealing to the other person’s morality.>> 1: At last, recognition, that cold squiggles on drying paper have no force to compel or persuade absent a live creature with significant freedom and a sense of duty before responsibilities of reason. 2: Of course, as sociopathy and indoctrination show, conscience can become unsound or even so calloused as to be regarded as dead. (This is different from the dilemmas faced by those in no-win situations -- which, unfortunately, can be set up by ruthless manipulators..) >> But we are doing so in the hopes that their morality with respect to interactions with others is similar to our own.>> 3: Here, the obvious issue is, we are creatures of the same order of being: responsible, rationally free, in a world with others of like nature. Here, I find Locke's citation from Hooker in Ch 2 Sec 5 of his 2nd treatise on Civil Gov't, as extended, elucidating regarding duty to neighbour and its intelligible import:
[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, doubtless reflecting on many Greco-Roman thinkers etc, likely including Cicero: "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. ]
4: In an age of all but pervasive indoctrination in relativism, with open doors to subjectivism and emotivism . . . never mind readily exposed incoherence, double standards [Nazis like you have no rights] and absurdities . . . many will conflate morality and duty with mores and habitual behaviours. 5: They then find it difficult to perceive that there can be other levels involved, especially if there is an influence from evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers, notions corrosive of recognising the presence and significance of real, significant freedom of agents -- or alleged absence of such -- for rationality and responsibility. 6: Without freedom, we are not free to infer per sound principles of logic, evaluation of facts and choice informed by sense of duty. We are back in a Plato's Cave, Matrix world of grand delusions. Hence, the absurd folly in Provine's inadvertent admissions:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
7: those need to be reckoned with, to recognise instead the force of what we find inescapable in our arguments (or in the intensified form, quarrels): in presenting arguments, we are appealing/expecting implicitly acknowledged duty to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, fairness, justice etc. 8: Consider typical cases. Here are the facts. I was there I am a witness. This is a record from good chain of custody coming from witnesses. You are a liar. That book is a fraud. Your accounts fail to give a true and fair view of financial circumstances and we the auditors must qualify. Cretans are liars. You mistook your facts. You are putting up fallacies. You have not grounded your facts as so. Where is your evidence. What are the risks. What do we not even know that we don't know. If I treated you like that how would you feel. You unfair me. I was here first. Why did you cut the line. Jefferson held slaves so we can set aside his arguments about self evident liberty rights. And much more. 9: It would be amusing to see the rhetorical wriggling on the hook above, if it were not so sad and so filled with sobering import for civilisation. But at least, half-marks. >> If the other person’s morality with respect to interactions is similar to ours,>> 10: Relativising and conflating moral habits with moral duties. A sociopath cannot plead dead conscience to evade a murder or treason rap. There is a reason we talk of cold blooded murder. >>we can have a fruitful discussion;>> 11: When someone is willing to acknowledge first duties of reason, discussion can proceed. Failing which, refusal of the force of duty and logic leads to the logic of force in defence of the civil peace of justice with liberty under sound law. 12: And that is the fire we are playing with here. >> when our morality differs,>> 13: When moral habits differ, when conscience has been warped or benumbed , when people have been manipulated to put darkness for light and light for darkness . . . >> any discussion is pointless.>> 14: Actually, no. We are in a position to highlight deeper principles, here, first principles and duties of reason. Of course, when a community or civilisation has been manipulated into a voyage of stubborn folly in the teeth of warning, it may well take a Euro-Aquilo to sort things out so that the formerly dismissed voice can stand up as the good man or woman in the storm. But here, beware the two-minute hate of scapegoating and stigmatising. >> It is irrelevant whether these moral values are objective or subjective.>> 15: A key error. It is precisely the issue warrant/lack thereof that allows discerning sound from unsound, thus hopes for correction through responsible discussion rather than having to resort to the sword. 16: This error is part of why the USA is now in a 4th gen civil war, now with a Reichstag fire incident being played out on one side, with a Coral Sea bloody nose stopping blow on running the strategic board on the other. I think a Midway and Guadalcanal are in the offing. And note, we are moving from agit prop to possible full kinetic operations. 17: That is where stubborn folly leads. KF kairosfocus
jerry @ 580
Who did this guidance? Not known for sure but reasonable people believe it was the creator of the universe.
Okay, enough! I confess it was me. But as this experiment goes on, I'm getting more and more regretful. So get your act together. (Genesis 6:6) Concealed Citizen
WJM, 562 re my comment at 559 on objections regarding natural duties not explicitly assented to with opt-outs: I am reporting legal and -- sadly -- historical facts that show that duties may and do arise simply from being a rational, responsible, significantly free creature in particular circumstances without explicit avowal of allegiance. Worldview assumptions that would dismiss such, fail. KF PS: Webster's 1828 on liberty:
LIB'ERTY, noun [Latin libertas, from liber, free.] 1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions. 2. Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government. 3. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty. The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others. In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty. 4. Political liberty is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe. 5. Religious liberty is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control. 6. Liberty in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other. Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition.
kairosfocus
I tought i taw a puddy tat, wotz up dok!!!!! kairosfocus
VL, that allows me to easily use clips that already have the usual two levels of quote marks in them, and reserves block quoting while also steering away from bold etc. Of course, stand-in for the French style quote marks . . . which, I once had an Editor remove when I wanted that in place of indent for clips. KF kairosfocus
Dats wot i tought es58
Viola Lee I have overwhelming evidence that it’s “taught”, not “tought”.
The evolutionists are so sharp when it's about grammar. :))) Sandy
I have overwhelming evidence that it's "taught", not "tought". Viola Lee
Doubter There is overwhelming evidence...
Nope, you were tought that . Sandy
Jerry@580 "Humans were created. I find no reasonable way that they could appear on this planet without some exterior guidance. " I don't think by a single creative act. There is overwhelming evidence that man very slowly evolved into his present physical and intellectual/moral/artistic/spiritual form. Especially, we have come to know with a high degree of certainty that man is also a spiritual being relating deeply to a spiritual realm of existence that exists along with the physical. It is a big problem to find some way to reconcile two seemingly incompatible bodies of evidence and experience. A new and excellent article in the Smithsonian (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/essential-timeline-understanding-evolution-homo-sapiens-180976807/) details many of the fossil bone and tool finds over many years that have established beyond the shadow of a doubt that Homo Sapiens did slowly evolve both physically and culturally over the last 750,000 years or so from semihuman relatively primitive forms into modern man with great scientific, technological, artistic cultural, and spiritual capabilities and achievements.
"The long evolutionary journey that created modern humans began with a single step—or more accurately—with the ability to walk on two legs. One of our earliest-known ancestors, Sahelanthropus, began the slow transition from ape-like movement some six million years ago, but Homo sapiens wouldn’t show up for more than five million years. During that long interim, a menagerie of different human species lived, evolved and died out, intermingling and sometimes interbreeding along the way. As time went on, their bodies changed, as did their brains and their ability to think, as seen in their tools and technologies. To understand how Homo sapiens eventually evolved from these older lineages of hominins, the group including modern humans and our closest extinct relatives and ancestors, scientists are unearthing ancient bones and stone tools, digging into our genes and recreating the changing environments that helped shape our ancestors’ world and guide their evolution."
Of course materialist anthropologists assume "spiritual evolution" is just another relatively late cultural anomaly with no existential implications (there is no such thing as a spiritual realm), but as discussed at length in this forum, the very large body of paranormal empirical evidence that has accumulated points conclusively toward the existence of a spiritual realm that man is very much a part of. The mystery is how to reconcile the undeniable anthropological fossil evidence of a very gradual transformation of man from a brute to the modern version, with the spiritual view of modern man with a soul and an afterlife. Obviously evolution is a fact even though for many strong reasons the Darwinistic undirected by intelligence semi-random walk mechanism assumed to be how it happened is totally untenable. So there appears on the surface to be a cognitive dissonance between two large bodies of evidence, unless there can be some sort of understanding of how the spiritual component of modern man's persona came to be especially in the developmental primitive stages of this very slow (in terms of hundreds of thousands of years) process. At what point did the souls decide that the "physical vehicle" had finally evolved to an appropriate form and therefore decide to inhabit the physical? Or did the soul itself evolve along with the physical body and culture? If the latter, what sort of consciousness did the early primitive forms of soul have, and what sort of early primitive afterlife? What sort of higher spiritual plan could this be the result of, and what sort of spiritual beings could be behind it? We have no idea. On the surface it looks like just a fruitless attempt to merge two completely incompatible bodies of evidence. doubter
Here is what I believe and for which I believe there is obvious support. Humans were created. I find no reasonable way that they could appear on this planet without some exterior guidance. Who did this guidance? Not known for sure but reasonable people believe it was the creator of the universe. However, for natural law purposes it is not necessary to know who provided the guidance that led to the existence of humanity. So the identity is not an issue for natural law only that it happened. Given that there was guidance, then whoever did the guiding was very intelligent and must have built into humans some survival characteristics. These are at a minimum, natural laws. They probably built into humans other characteristics leading to some objectives they had for this species since this species is so unlike any other in existence. These objectives could likely be deduced from how humans tend to act under a variety of situations and how they are different from other species. Lots of smart people have observed these tendencies and also have then deduced/observed the objectives they lead to. They then codified these tendencies/characteristics into something called human nature and what we are calling natural law. Some of these objectives that human nature leads to are not constructive to both themselves and to others. For example, too much freedom could get a toddler killed and many adults pursue self-destructive behavior that affects not just themselves but others. These self destructive objectives and tendencies then become proscribed. Objectives that are constructive for themselves and others are then prescribed. And the actions or should I dare say duties of individuals are such as to promote constructive objectives. (freedom is something that nearly all the natural law proponents missed as an essential characteristic of humans. This led to some horrible laws over the ages that oppressed most humans.) These are then put into laws to govern human actions toward these constructive ends for individuals as well as others. The codifying of laws was not necessary in small groups as the adults/leaders of the groups enforced what was obviously constructive. But as city states evolved, a more formal codifying was necessary. Hammurabi is one of the first persons to codify laws around 1800 BC but there were others before him. We then call these constructive objectives, moral objectives and actions that lead to them, moral. And the studies of the topic something called morality. I'd be interested if anything that Kf has said is in conflict with this. He will be the judge not others. If he does disagree then maybe we can have a conversation as to why and maybe some of the things I just wrote could be defended or modified. jerry
And Jerry, I actually think you are talking about something different than KF is, and that I agree more with you than him. For instance, you write ,"Try refuting the law of supply and demand which is the basis for economics and based on natural tendencies of humans." Also, back at #4 you wrote, "Is human nature the result of something similar and rooted in the physical force that produces dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, endorphins and cortisol?" I believe that human beings have a common core of characteristics, including rationality, compassion, and the innate urge to use those to make judgments, including moral ones. I also believe that those are associated with the laws of nature in the way you are using that term as you did in #4, including underlying biological components such as "dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, endorphins and cortisol." I accept all that, and I accept, for instance, that the law of supply and demand is "based on natural tendencies in humans." So I agree with you on some of this. I don't think this is what KF and the natural law philosophers are talking about. They are talking about transcendent qualities to which we have access, and that is what I don't believe in, but that is different than what you are referring to, I think. Anyway, that't the way it looks to me. Viola Lee
Jerry, first of all, I'm reasonable well-educated on the topic: taught some History of Western Civ many years ago and have read fairly widely on religion, philosophy, and the history of ideas since then. Natural law is a core idea in western and Christian philosophy. That doesn't automatically make it right. There are other perspectives, both from other religious traditions and from some branches of western philosophy. We are discussing the ideas, so just finding references from people, no matter how famous, that support an idea is not itself evidence that the idea is right. Viola Lee
Not to anyone who hasn’t already accepted that premise.
Maybe you should study the history of ideas, specifically the history of natural law. Why don't you argue with those who wrote it. Try refuting Aristotle, Cicero, Socrates, Plato, Kant, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Mill, Newman, Robert George and a zillion others. Try refuting the law of supply and demand which is the basis for economics and based on natural tendencies of humans. Try refuting the behavior of a 12 month old as it learns to walk and seeks its freedom. jerry
575 WJM writes, "4. We always utilize our free will to seek out and instantiate, if possible, that which we prefer." This doesn't seem meaningful. How do we know what we prefer? By looking at what we will. This seems circular. And I agree with your answer to Jerry. KF started the OP with "Laws of Nature are a key part of the foundation of modern science. This reflects not only natural, law-like regularities ...but also the perspective of many founders that they were thinking God’s creative, ordering providential and world-sustaining thoughts after him. The focal topic asks us whether our civil law is effectively an accident of power balances, or else, could it be accountable to a built in law that pivots on first duties coeval with our humanity." I do not find that obvious at all. As you, me, and others have said, that is a conclusion built into the premises of a particular world view, but there are other perspectives that seem much more reasonable to many people. So I also don't agree with Jerry's statement that the answer to the title question of the OP is "obviously yes" if we take the question as KF meant it. Viola Lee
Seversky @ 574:
Yes, I can agree with that but I will put this question to you. I am heterosexual, have no problem with homosexuality but I simply cannot imagine how it would feel to find men attractive in the way that women are or to love a man as I might love a woman. Would you regard that as a restraint on free will?
Not any more than I would consider the physical inability to flap our arms and fly a constraint on free will. So, we are agreed on the following aspects of human nature: 1. Our existence is necessarily orderly. 2. we have free will (not free action). 3. all experience occurs in mind. I'm not sure if you saw it, but I later offered this as another aspect of human nature. 4. We always utilize our free will to seek out and instantiate, if possible, that which we prefer. Do you agree? Personally, I don't see how free will exists other than with #4 as one of its intrinsic qualities, but I think it's important to note. I think this quality of free will is at the root of most of our issues about morality. Jerry said:
The answer is so obviously yes.
Not to anyone who hasn't already accepted that premise. William J Murray
William J Murray/527
I understand free will as the capacity to will, or intend, anything you want. “Will” is a mental capacity, not a physical one. It is not “free physical action” because our capacity to act physically is not anywhere near free. Mentally, however, we can desire anything, intend anything, send our mind off anywhere we desire, imagine anything. For example, I can freely intend or imagine or will myself to be able to walk through a brick wall, but it’s not going to physically happen. Can we agree that, under the above clarification, free will is part of our existential nature?
Yes, I can agree with that but I will put this question to you. I am heterosexual, have no problem with homosexuality but I simply cannot imagine how it would feel to find men attractive in the way that women are or to love a man as I might love a woman. Would you regard that as a restraint on free will?
Can we agree that while the theory that a world external of mind is common, that theory does not rise to the same level of certainty as the other three statements?
Yes, we can. Seversky
Yes, single angle arrows wouldn't work. but why not just the standard punctuation of quotation marks? This is obviously not a big issue at all, though. Viola Lee
VL, to highlight a certain level of quote. I would use the LH angle arrows but they trigger html and cause a problem. KF kairosfocus
Back at #4 I asked
The primary physical force operating in human nature is the electromagnetic force. Amazing fine tuning. Does our conscious/will have the ability to counteract these physical force fields? Form new force fields? Apparently so. Is law based in maximizing dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin and endorphins and limiting cortisol in society?
No one has addressed this. I believe this should be the essence of the discussion. In other words, we are born with certain force fields operating (synapses established) but have the ability to establish new synapses. Some of these new synapses will lead to positive development and others will lead to long term harm. A lot of the discussion has focused on the harmful development of some people as opposed to what is beneficial for all. But humans are constantly building new synapses as are probably most life forms. This is a fundamental characteristic of human nature. There is the very appropriate expression “teaching an old dog new tricks.” Part of this is definitely not neurological but gene expression. In other words human nature is a function of gene expression and neurological connections (maybe other things.). Our conscious enables us to overcome both of these but not obviously not all instances. In the case of neurological synapses we can build new ones and weaken others but I doubt we can overcome gene expression. Maybe medical procedures or how we eat and what we ingest. jerry
If it was truly objective, there would be no need to have it “beaten” into us.
That doesn't follow. And just because you can say it doesn't make it so. I would love to see you make you case, though. ET
ps/ Yes, when we are debating someone we are appealing to the other person's morality. But we are doing so in the hopes that their morality with respect to interactions with others is similar to our own. If the other person's morality with respect to interactions is similar to ours, we can have a fruitful discussion; when our morality differs, any discussion is pointless. It is irrelevant whether these moral values are objective or subjective. This is no different than my desire to be treated with respect and in a civil manner when I am having a discussion on any thread. I am hoping that the person I am communicating with has the same desire. Although some of the interactions I have had here have been heated, there is usually a level of respect and civility, with one noted exception who I won't name. But with this person, there is no point in attempting to have a respectful discussion. That person's moral values simply differ too much from mine. Steve Alten2
The title of this thread is
Should We Recognise That “Laws Of Nature” Extend To Laws Of Our Human Nature? (Which, Would Then Frame Civil Law.)
The answer is so obviously yes. Some very extremely smart people throughout history have debated and answered this. They have missed somethings, some very important, and have gotten some important things wrong but essentially they answered the question in general. The answer is yes. So it may be interesting to debate some of the details but the basic question has been answered and is not in doubt. For example, there is a double implication in the title. First, how do the laws of nature affect human nature. This has hardly been addressed. Second, does human nature have implications for civil laws? Just what are the characteristics of human nature that affect civil law? Which? How? Not really answered. Also are there some characteristics of human nature that are contradictory and actually self destructive? In other words are there some characteristics that have to be subdued or unlearned in order to flourish? Children must be taught not to walk in the street. In other words where does learning become part of human nature. There are books and theories on learning positive things about life so part of human nature is this ability to learn new ways to flourish. Much of what has been discussed has ignored that learning is part of our nature as well as basic instincts that must be suppressed. Does anyone believe a child left completely on its own will survive in a positive way? Aside: religious beliefs should not enter into it much except to recognize that some of the very smart people responsible for examining natural law had a religious background and were affected by that background. Obviously what they saw as divine law would also affect human civil law. This thread represents a reaction to some extremely negative trends going on in the world today. Namely, modern technology has created some amazing breakthroughs to enable human flourishing but at the same time created enormous concentrations of wealth that seek to limit human freedom. With a means of control never before seen in human history. jerry
I have been trying to follow along with this discussion. Not an easy task given the writing style of one of the contributors. What this all boils down to is that Kairosfocus' first duties are better defined as desires/wishes/hopes/expectations, not objective duties or obligations. When I am making an argument I am doing so with the hope that others respond with honesty and. to the best of their knowledge, truth. There is no "objective" duty for the responder to do so. When I conclude that someone is not responding honestly or in good faith, something that we all run into, I simply stop responding to their comments. Kairosfocus falsely claims that whenever we make an argument that we are appealing to one of his first duties. We are not appealing to any objective duty, we are appealing to his desire to be honest. A desire that was instilled in him by his parents, and reinforced through societal interactions throughout the years. The fact that honesty was "beaten" into us from an early age is not evidence of it being objective, it is the exact opposite. If it was truly objective, there would be no need to have it "beaten" into us. Steve Alten2
WJM First, God cannot have “created” either me or any particular “system” I must exist in; this would be an original violation of both free will and consent.
Hahaha, it's true you are Napoleon and you are not crazy. Sandy
However, upon looking up some definitions of "duty," what I said earlier is mistaken. I don't think it's KF's definition of "duty" that is outside of the norm, it is mine. My apologies for that. It's my worldview that is (obviously) so outside of the norm, and I've become so accustomed to thinking this way, that my concept of "duty" seems "normal" to me. The normal definition of a "duty" is actually now almost incomprehensible to me. Like the theory of an external, physical, objective "reality," it doesn't really make any sense to me anymore. Again, my apologies, KF. William J Murray
I do not have any "duty" in the sense of a "moral ought" to not engage in criminal behavior or otherwise be a "good citizen." You cannot coerce a "moral duty" onto a person. In terms of "legal obligation".. what does that even mean? Someone saying "If you don't do X, you will be taken to prison" does not represent my internal duty or olbigation. An imposed, coerced duty does not represent a necessary internal duty or obligation. There is no such thing as an internal duty - MY DUTY or MY OBLIGATION - that can be imposed on me without my consent. William J Murray
Sandy said:
Christianity flourished under pagan Roman Empire and throughout history no matter what temporary “mighty” was reigned.
They only flourished inasmuch as that with the might allowed or protected, be that might their own, the pagans or the Christian God. It all boils down to distribution of might. William J Murray
KF @559, All of that is derived under your worldview assumptions, which as you should be aware by now, I do not share. William J Murray
So, I will go one step further and present the only rational existential situation that includes (1) the necessary ground of being "God" concept; (2) provides any meaningful free will, and (3) allows for any meaningful "consent." First, God cannot have "created" either me or any particular "system" I must exist in; this would be an original violation of both free will and consent. If that situation occurs, I then exist in a coerced state. My free will is, essentially, functionally useless, because it ultimately does not matter what I think, intend, desire or will, all realized possibilities are coercively arranged and imposed on me regardless of my will. I would be a victim of circumstance in every conceivable way. There is only one solution to the above dilemma, and it's been a part of many spiritual traditions for ages: I am God. That is the only way functional, meaningful free will exists. That is the only way I am not ultimately in a coerced system as a coerced "created" being living under coerced rules. It is only if I deliberately chose to exist as this kind of being, in this kind of situation, that it can be said that I have any meaningful "consent" available to me. It also means that I must, even now, have the capacity to change **everything** I experience as I desire and wish. William J Murray
Just curious, KF. Is there a reason you use brackets >> instead of quotation marks " to indicate a quote by someone else? Why >>So, let me ask some questions.>> and not "So, let me ask some questions." Viola Lee
WJM, if you are born an American you have a huge range of duties without your particular much less explicit consent, under law. In addition, simply by enjoying benefits you consent by participation, something that should be familiar from all those web site, social media and app licence agreements. Betray such and you are liable up to execution in some cases, e.g. treason, murder. It is you who have injected a tendentious redefinition. That's just for starters, I think the rest of your arguments will unravel from there on. . KF kairosfocus
William J Murray It is folly to try and create any society that is not ultimately based on “might makes right.”
Haha, trying to shift the discussion is burying you deeper. Christianity flourished under pagan Roman Empire and throughout history no matter what temporary "mighty" was reigned. So, no , the mighy of the day doesn't have influence over real christians( that are willing even to die if is necessary ) . Sandy
KF, You did exactly what I told you would not work in persuading me. However, by saying that I can have a "duty" without my free will consent ("Yes, built in by nature ...), you have provided me the answer I was seeking. Namely, that what you are talking about is not a "duty" in any normal sense of that word. You are referring to a very distinct ideological definition of "duty" that actually contradicts any normal understanding of the word. As you said above, and actually as I have said many times, this is a worldview gap. I've said that all of your arguments extend not from the fundamentals of logic itself, or even the basic agreed-upon evidence, or even from existential facts, but from specific premises in your particular worldview. Yet, you argue as if these extrapolations should be apparent to everyone who doesn't share your worldview because you simply make assertions about duty and oughts without even bothering to explain what a "duty" is. Do you think we were just supposed to understand that highly esoteric and religious use of the word "duty" and how you were using it? Here is a highly accurate analogy for what you're telling us. As soon as I'm born, one of the inherent necessities for living is breathing (use of basic logic, which includes truthful statements.) As soon as I draw my first breath (make necessary appeals to truth and use of basic logic,) even though I'm consciously unware of it, I am making a choice to consent to not only breathe for the rest of my life (the necessity), but to do so in a very particular way in all situations that follow ("right reason.") Perhaps you also have a very specialized, ideological definition of "consent?" In your worldview, "existential necessity" = "duty," and "doing what is existentially necessary, even if one doesn't realize or understand they are doing so" = "consent" not only to do what is necessary, but to do it in a very particular way. This is what it looks like to me. You appear to be so thoroughly programmed into your worldview that you can't even see the self-contradictory nature of it. You have to contort the meaning of words into meaning, essentially, the exact opposite of what they normally mean to maintain it. You keep repeating entire blocks of exposition that assume the very principles in question as if they make the case for the principles they assume, as if repeating the often enough will make it clear to others how the principles they assume are valid. This is the basic, fundamental problem with Christianity; our supposed moral obligations are forced upon us without our conscious understanding or consent. The Christian God is the ultimate "might makes right" concept. However, I don't think anyone here would consider "might makes right" a "good" in terms of morality; they would consider it an evil. What you call "moral obligations we have consented to," in any normal reformulation of what you've expressed above, is actually a coercive threat made by a supreme power that forced me into its system without my consent. IMO, your worldview is not sane or even remotely rational, even internally. But, I do appreciate you taking the time to clear that up for me. William J Murray
WJM, the folly [observe, your appeal to duty to prudence and truth etc . . . ] is to try to reduce a society to the implied nihilist lawless oligarchy of might makes 'right.' Instead, given that there are such knaves and fools as well as those easily misled or intimidated, justice must be defended from enemies foreign and domestic, by the sword. The sword of justice, with the will to use it firmly but judiciously. Which requires a culture of diligent habituation under the first duties of reason towards the civil peace of justice. Which, is breaking down. KF kairosfocus
WJM, I will respond on points: >>I’m unconvinced but willing to be convinced, and I’m willing to try to better understand your position.>> 1: Appreciated, thanks. >> What you are currently saying, and/or how you are saying it, does not make any sense to me.>> 2: A sign of worldviews gaps. One that reflects the state of our civilisation and some of what we have lost. I further appreciate that such are clearly hard to bridge. But they need bridging if we are to address either the immediate comparative difficulties or the longer term challenge of our civilisation's future. >>So, let me ask some questions.>> 3: Okay. >> Keep in mind, the argument that everything I say implies a duty to say those things that way>> 4: I have pointed out that in arguing, we consistently, nay, inescapably, expect others to acknowledge the first duties, so by simple reciprocity they apply to us too absent self serving exceptionalism. Duties, to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour [including to us], so too to fairness and justice etc. 5: These, I have seen as directly manifesting a built in law of our responsibly free, rational nature; closely connected to the dignity of being human and being foundational to sound civil law and government, thus civilisation. 6: Where, though the list-order and fleshing out are mine, there is a logical order and there is a specific sparking source, Cicero. I clip now from two of his writings. First, De Legibus, c 50 BC:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [--> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [--> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
[--> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]
This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
Next, On The Republic, c 55 - 54 BC:
, On the Republic, Bk 3: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with [--> our morally governed] nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it [--> as universally binding core of law], and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people [--> as binding, universal, coeval with our humanity], and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. [--> sound conscience- guided reason will point out the core] And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 55 - 54 BC
7: These are part of the classical deposit, foundational to our legal heritage and to the rise of modern liberty and democracy. Specifically, we see here a direct reference to the innate law coeval with our humanity, law of our nature, which frames the context that justice is due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities that establishes a true civil peace. The same civil peace that is being willfully but blindly broken by those with governmental responsibility as we speak. With grave predictable consequences, i.e. this is an existential matter in a day where our fingers are literally on the nuke launch button. >>does not make any sense to me, so try and keep from repeating that particular argument.>> 8: It does not make sense to point out to you that in arguing, you inescapably expect me or others to respect truth, sound reasoning, need for warrant, restraint i/l/o limitations, discernment, etc? I can point it out readily from the structures of your arguments and from those of others, even as you or they object to said first duties. 9: The point is, if something is in the fabric of rationality, it will pervade reasoning, as Epictetus highlighted on first principles of reason [with correlative duties]. I note, you tried and failed to dismiss that and beg to remind that the Quantum physicists, just to communicate meaningfully and lay out coherent mathematics are forced to embed principle of identity and its close corollaries non-contradiction and excluded middle. So, onward they cannot rightly, justly, soundly claim that their observations overturn the laws they are using from the outset. 10: And you know that the inescapability of a first premise at root of reasoning is core to my point so I cannot accept an attempt on your part to demand that I set it aside. In the end, it is an observation of a pervasive pattern that we may be unconscious of as a fish might be as it swims in water. Just as, Epictetus' interlocutor was. >>1. What do you mean by “duty?” I assume you mean “ought,” but my understanding of “ought” or “duty” requires a reference to that which my ought delivers correctly something of value to that or whom I am supposed to correctly fulfill the requirement of my “ought” or “duty.”>> 11: Notice, at outset, meaningfulness as normative, implying distinct identity, accurate reference to states of affairs and unifying explanation? The first duties put in their appearance from the outset, projected to me. Here, I draw your attention to something you apparently are unconscious of, something woven into the fabric of your argument and without which it would have no force. 12: Duty and oughtness are connected, tied to our responsible, rational, significantly free, self-acting, self-moved nature. 13: The physical world as we experience it [I am not here engaging its ontology, aware as I am of your view on that] reflects a dynamic-stochastic, cause effect chaining that is shaped by forces, configurations etc, e.g. how a computer functions -- it is precisely not freely reasoning. 14: By contrast, we make choices, which lead us to act in certain ways, much as how we type out our comments in this thread. In Plato's words. I pick him up in mid-flight in his argument on nature vs art and the cosmological design inference he makes in The Laws Bk X, a text too long even as excerpted, to more fully cite here:
Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [--> notice, the self-moved, initiating, reflexively acting causal agent, which defines freedom as essential to our nature, and this is root of discussion on agents as first causes.] [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [--> he seems to be framing life and soul as key linked concepts] [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. [--> the start-point of the chain of successive events of finite stage, here, projected to explaining a contingent, causal chain cosmos . . . this is tied to another exchange on imagined transfinite past causal chain cosmos; I simply note that I am satisfied that such a chain cannot successfully be traversed to transfinite degree in finite stage steps one after the other] Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? [--> contrasting the blindly causal contingent chain of cause-effect consequences; in-anima-te here comes through from latin, lacking soul, anima] Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
15: So, duty comes from freedom manifesting a rational, self-moved [living, en-souled, conscience guided] nature. That is
a - reflexive, self-moved agent A b - may act on contingent possibilities C1 to CN, c - which are rival and practically exhaustive d - of which Ci and Cj are the focal, best choices [by whatever relevant criteria] e - where, the opportunity cost of Ci is Cj foregone and the converse f - where too, it is possible to choose the worse and to be under the impression that it is the better g - so, the matter of responsible rational choice as to which of Ci and Cj to eventuate becomes pivotal h - we thus see the is-ought gap, as ought implies say Cj is better warranted but selection of Ci remains possible and is often in fact taken. (There is even the possibility that Ck may have been a better alternative by whatever criteria) i - the concept of freedom is here focussed in representative agent A's power to identify Ci vs Cj [as opposed to Ck] from C1 to Cn, and to then eventuate whichever is favoured. j - selection criteria and evaluation as well as power to choose are pervaded with rational choice, criteria, values, and a sense of duty often attested to by the familiar voice of conscience [especially when severe risks and consequences are potentially on the line and avoidable ignorance or warped thinking can lead to a bias towards ruin] k - in this context, duty in the first instance is the conscience-attested voice of ought. l - Ought that needs not be eventuated but unless it is habitually implemented, given severe risks of various kinds, personal ruin, ruin of close valued agents [family, colleagues], ruin of community, ruin of civilisation, ruin of human existence may follow, especially id habitually poorly choosing agent A becomes the representative pattern. m - however, ought is not mere consequentialism, consequence to self, family, neighbour, community, civilisation and world were habitual patterns of abuse and folly to be established and become the norm are actually an expression of a key criterion for testing oughtness, the categorical imperative or sustainability principle and the linked civil peace of justice, with due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. n - where also we see ability to hypothesis and evaluate chains of likely or possible consequences are part of the framework of rational agency, with the voice of duty counselling that choice towards ruin is unjust, imprudent, irrational etc. o - further, we notice that the logic of probable implication and possible consequence emerges, in a context where the power of a non-factual contingency Ci/j/k to lead to true or probably true or possibly true consequences were worlds i/ j/k eventuated through choice, is pivotal. Duty to reason, warrant, truth, are embedded. p - where, duty also comes through as multi-dimensional, to self, family, community, civilisation, world, where there may be clashes and choices of lesser of evils thus need to make prudent compromises that ameliorate intensity and/or extent of evil but cannot eliminate such. Evil, being regarded as frustration or perversion of a valuable or good thing from its proper often naturally evident end. For example, human thriving pervades the above. q - and duty may well point onward, as we see good vs evil surfacing, thence the issues of answering Euthyphro and Hume, that the ultimate locus of the good and duty is in the root of our own contingent reality. r - that is, we have a bill of requisites for such a root, consistent with the said first duties: a characterisation of the root agent, A_0: inherently good and utterly wise, necessary, maximally great being capable of causing and sustaining worlds. s - such A_0 would be finitely remote, at beginning of our and other worlds. Also, as capable, good and wise to maximal extent, bridges is and ought in the root of reality. So, ought is non-arbitrary and will be partly intelligible [we are limited in our rationality]. It is also grounded, pace Hume's is-is then poof ought-ought. Ought comes from one and the same root as is, on this candidate. Where, as necessary, as a candidate, either impossible or actual as can be drawn out. Where, there is no good reason to hold as impossible. t - wisdom, goodness etc also point to personality, person not impersonal entity or force. u - and more
16: These constitute a drawing out and explanation of how things tie together not a proof. The act of proving is itself riddled with appeals to said first duties. 17: Truly first principles and duties are antecedent to and pervade the fabric of reasoned thought, speech and action, thus proof. They cannot be proved as they are how we prove and see as proved to adequate degree. They can, however be acknowledged as inescapable, inescapably true and self-evident on pain of absurdity on attempted denial or dismissal. 18: So no, the hyperskeptical demand for arbitrarily high warrant itself relies for whatever persuasiveness it has, on the force of said first duties. >> Is that basically a correct understanding?>> 19: That duties obtain as intuitive influences of intelligible, rational character? Yes. That they adhere to our sense of our dignity as rational, responsible, significantly free agents, yes. That by reciprocity they extend to other agents of like nature, yes. That they connect to thriving of humanity, yes. That they extend to root reality bA_0, yes. >>2. IF so, you say I have a duty to be truthful, that this is basic. To whom or what do I owe that behavior to?>> 20: To the chain as described at 19. Likewise, one who is known as habitually untruthful is soon manifested as untrustworthy and as self-excluded from the pale of responsible, reasonable discourse. If this pattern becomes significant, a community and a civilisation begin to disintegrate, as we see all around us. >>3. Can a person be said to have a duty if they are not made explicitly aware of their duty?>> 21: The first witness is sound conscience, which is part of the built in fabric. There are those whose consciences have been crushed, the sociopaths. Some argue that a few have been born defective, conscienceless, the psychopaths. I suspect, the latter are likely early life sociopaths, but that is a side issue. 22: By and large in community, we cannot not be aware of said duties, and indeed guilt is a fundamental human experience. 23: To pretend otherwise is to speak with disregard to truth in hope of rhetorical advantage. Such can be safely set aside. >> It seems to me that if I am to accept a duty and be held responsible for delivering it correctly, it is then the duty of whomever or whatever is holding me to that duty to make me explicitly aware of that duty.>> 24: Meet your conscience, the ethical voice of your soul. >>4. Can I be obligated to a duty without my free will consent?>> 25: Yes, by built in nature that is part and parcel of that freedom antecedent to and constitutive of the power of rational choice. We freely consent so soon as we argue or more clearly when we quarrel, as C S Lewis so aptly pointed out . . . clipped above, I trust it was not scrolled past. 26: If you remained silent and exerted no attempt to persuade, then you might have a point, but manifestly you have consented by projection to the other of like nature. KF kairosfocus
It is folly to try and create any society that is not ultimately based on "might makes right." #1, "might makes right" is a physical fact; he or she with the most might in the world, be it number of people, or most deadly weaponry, ultimately either makes, allows or enforces the rules. #2, reason is only as effective as those with might allow it to be. #3, a sufficiently large society is an ungovernable chaotic system unless one has the might to control it. While reason, or some other form of persuasion, might sway the mighty into support of a social cause, reason by itself is not sufficient, while might by itself is, even if the might is used to terminate all opposition and dissent. William J Murray
Jerry, though it is not best to say so much in a day of doxxing, yes to both; I also taught management related and sci-tech courses in Jamaica. Compare dates then and now. Major eruptive behaviour ran 1995 - 2003, with echoes 2005 and up to 2010. KF kairosfocus
VL, yes, Anderson was a Missiologist, and gave a better balanced view than Smith. KF PS: Web Archive may give a view on some of why
Includes a bonus section, "Plus : insights, interviews, and more!" containing "Exploring religious frontiers," transcribed from the First Kern Lecture sponsored by the Theosophical Society in America", Bederman Auditorium, Chicago, Illinois, on April 18, 2002, [by] Huston Smith (pages 402-415) and "Huston Smith's search for wisdom in a bewildered world", by Richard Marranca, originally published in Shambhala Sun magazine, July 1997 (pages 416-431) . . . . This volume offers an introduction to comparative religion, exploring the essential elements and teachings of the world's predominant faiths, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the native traditions of Australia, Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. Emphasizing the inner, rather than the institutional, dimension of these religions, the author devotes special attention to Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, Sufism, and the teachings of Jesus. He conveys the unique appeal and gifts of each of the traditions and reveals their hold on the human heart and imagination. Includes a new preface to the 50th anniversary edition written by the author in January 2009, as well as a supplemental section on p. 401-431 of insights, interviews, and more
I suspect, that may have been why, it is distant now but my memory is that I wanted a more structural view. HS IIRC gave a more comparative, relativised view that echoed an essence in common view popular early in C20. PPS: Top US Review of Anderson at Amazon:
I found this book to be an excellent read and the reason for my lower rating is based on the author got bogged down in too many layers of details at times. [--> those are the details I would have wanted and they were not bogging down, they were exposition] For some, this is not a problem but I felt that after the author made the point very well he continued to add dimensions that could have confused the original statement. The best part of the book is near the end when the author begins to tackle the practicle questions and applications. But it is an essential read for Major World Religions!!!
kairosfocus
Kf, Do you live in Monserrat? You obviously taught philosophy in Jamaica. jerry
Here's the blurb for Norman Anderson's book at Amazon. I'm not sure this looks like "better balance" to me! :-)
Christianity and World Religions: How does the Christian faith relate to other faiths? Do these other faiths have any place in God's plan of salvation? In what sense is Christianity unique? These questions have challenged many thinkers in recent years, including such writers as John Hick and Hans Kung. Norman Anderson examines their writings alongside the biblical evidence and the beliefs of the major non-Christian religions. He probes difficult questions and does not shrink from controversy. His book provides an important analysis of the uniqueness of the Christian revelation.
And here's one of the few reviews at Amazon:
It is a defense of the uniqueness of Christianity against various religious pluralists who are nominally in the Christian community. Anderson's main purpose is to state both the biblical and the philosophical case for the uniqueness of Christianity. Though his arguments will not persuade everyone, and some of them could have been made more strongly, on the whole he does a good job of making the case for the uniqueness of the Christian faith. I would highly recommend this book for someone wishing to get an overview of that defense. Just don't expect to be thoroughly versed in the various religions of the world as a result.
[My emphasis] Viola Lee
VL, just as a note, 40 years back I found Norman Anderson a better balance than Houston Smith when I did Dev of Civ. Add another decade and the Grolier human geography volumes were a better balance too. In recent years I found Bisnauth on Religions in the Caribbean illuminating -- we have populations from the span of the 10/40 window all the way out to Japan here.Suriname for instance is actually majority Javanese with Japanese from Brazil. KF kairosfocus
WJM, later, I am written out on dealing with local matters just now, need to depolarise de old terminals for a bit. KF kairosfocus
Viola Lee First, “There is not objective morality” isn’t a moral statement. It is a statement about what is (or in this case, what is not), not a statement about what ought to be.
Hahàha, I'm speechless ,what a "powerful" argument. Every single quarelling around the concept of "morality" is a moral judgement . To talk about the quality of morality ("that do not exist objective morality ") is to declare that he knows what the objective morality looks like and then comparing with what he observe in the world to deduce that there is no objective morality . :)))) PS: "Sky is blue" is an example of "what it is" and nobody quarrel about . Morality has other immaterial dimensions and everybody declare that they "know better" than others what morality is . Hmmmm! Sandy
The book I am reading covers Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and a final chapter on the primal religions. In all of these he discusses various branches within the religion. The varieties of ideas is tremendous. Viola Lee
VL, re Eastern Religions, 540. I am not speaking of religious traditions, East, West, North or South, I am addressing live option worldviews in our civilisation at this time. That means, I think polytheism, henotheism and dualism are effectively dead issues, gnosticism even more so, and magic too. Animism is currently a counter-culture or minority view and tends to bind itself to pantheism of an inarticulate sort or is strongly blended with theism; in the Caribbean, people often enough go to church and go to the balm yard too, never mind what pastors or preachers warn. I should note, Animism is dominant in Haiti, with a 10 million national population. The big three are as described, the evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers of the elite radical secularists, pantheism (and I take in panentheism there as more or less a variant). Ethical theism, including whatever remains of deism. Strictly, all major religions come from Asia, the two biggest and their elder brother being from W Asia. Animism is still around but mostly is blended with big ticket religions, some of which blend into one another too, e.g. Islam and Hinduism in centuries past in parts of India with debates over who is an avatar. Hinduism is the classic pantheistic view and Buddhism grew in that soil. Confucianism is to my mind, somewhat of a religious philosophy, maybe as loose analogy the Eastern version of Stoicism? Others are important in their local contexts but don't dominate large populations like the listed do; I spoke to Haiti, which seems to be trending Christian but I need to ask for confirmation. But, more particularly, I am addressing worldviews that are big ticket options and the three I highlighted seem to be what I have kept seeing. KF kairosfocus
Thanks, Jerry, for your interest. There are several versions of Buddhism, but below are some quotes from Smith on some basic beliefs of Buddhism. I don't think orthodox Christianity could reconcile with these, although there may be other interpretations of both Buddhism and Christianity that could be believed together.
“One meaning of God is that of a personal being who created the universe by deliberate design. Defined in this sense, nirvana is not God. The Buddha did not consider it personal because personality requires definition, which nirvana excludes. And while he did not expressly deny creation, he clearly exempted nirvana from responsibility for it. If absence of a personal Creator-God is atheism, Buddhism is atheistic. There is a second meaning of God, however, which (to distinguish it from the first) has been called the Godhead. The idea of personality is not part of this concept, which appears in mystical traditions throughout the world. When the Buddha declared, “There is, O monks, an Unborn, neither become nor created nor formed…. Were there not, there would be no deliverance from the formed, the made, the compounded,” .... “What was the atta (Pali for the Sanskrit Atman or soul) that the Buddha denied? At the time it had come to signify (a) a spiritual substance that, in keeping with the dualistic position in Hinduism, (b) retains its separate identity forever. Buddha denied both these features. His denial of spiritual substance—the soul as homunculus, a ghostly wraith within the body that animates the body and outlasts it—appears to have been the chief point that distinguished his concept of transmigration from prevailing Hindu interpretations. Authentic child of India, the Buddha did not doubt that reincarnation was in some sense a fact, but he was openly critical of the way his Brahmanic contemporaries interpreted the concept.”
Excerpt From: Huston Smith. “The World's Religions, Revised and Updated.” Apple Books. Viola Lee
Jerry, on comparative difficulties as a key method for philosophy, and please note the handout. KF kairosfocus
And KF continues to dismiss all the Eastern religions and their views as “pantheistic” without, I think, very much knowledge of them.
Why don't you compare and contrast them with Christianity? For example, I was under the impression that Buddhism wasn't really a religion but a philosophical approach to life and as such a Christian Buddhist is a possibility and not an oxymoron.
Buddhism is a non-theistic religion (no belief in a creator god), also considered a philosophy and a moral discipline, originating in India in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. It was founded by the sage Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha l. c. 563 - c. 483 BCE) who, according to legend, had been a Hindu prince before abandoning his position and wealth to become a spiritual ascetic and, finally, an enlightened being who taught others the means by which they could escape samsara, the cycle of suffering, rebirth, and death
https://www.ancient.eu/buddhism/ jerry
Voltaire made famous Leibniz's thesis of "The Best of All Possible Worlds" by mocking it with Candide. But several years later Voltaire was asked to bless Benjamin Franklin's grandson and he placed his hand on Frnaklin's grandson and his blessing was "God and Liberty." Interesting combination of concepts. Voltaire then wrote to a friend, describing the scene:
“All who were present shed tears of happiness. I flatter myself that you will share these principles.” The principle of God and liberty.
jerry
In response to my 515, KF wrote 2400 words repeating himself again but not actually confronting the points I made. Also, among other things, WJM is correct to ask KF. "Duty to what, or whom?" And KF continues to dismiss all the Eastern religions and their views as "pantheistic" without, I think, very much knowledge of them. Viola Lee
At 528, WJM
VL said:, First, “There is not objective morality” isn’t a moral statement. It is a statement about what is (or in this case, what is not), not a statement about what ought to be.
Not that I expect you care, but … well done.
Thank you. But why do you think I wouldn't care? I appreciate being noticed for a good comment. Viola Lee
Does this mean you don’t know what the measure is?
Nope. We can reason to some of it. Already said not provable but likely. A world of struggle and striving. That’s from observation. jerry
Jerry said:
The creator’s measure.
Does this mean you don't know what the measure is? William J Murray
passed back.Worldviews can be evaluated on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power on a grand inference to best explanation.
Haven’t a clue what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say it’s not provable but arguable? Pose a question for every Christian on this site.
How could Leibniz’s theory not be true?
———————————
Best of all possible worlds” according to what measure?
The creator’s measure. jerry
Jerry @ 532: "Best of all possible worlds" according to what measure? William J Murray
KF, let's go about this a different way. I'm unconvinced but willing to be convinced, and I'm willing to try to better understand your position. What you are currently saying, and/or how you are saying it, does not make any sense to me. So, let me ask some questions. Keep in mind, the argument that everything I say implies a duty to say those things that way does not make any sense to me, so try and keep from repeating that particular argument. 1. What do you mean by "duty?" I assume you mean "ought," but my understanding of "ought" or "duty" requires a reference to that which my ought delivers correctly something of value to that or whom I am supposed to correctly fulfill the requirement of my "ought" or "duty." Is that basically a correct understanding? 2. IF so, you say I have a duty to be truthful, that this is basic. To whom or what do I owe that behavior to? 3. Can a person be said to have a duty if they are not made explicitly aware of their duty? It seems to me that if I am to accept a duty and be held responsible for delivering it correctly, it is then the duty of whomever or whatever is holding me to that duty to make me explicitly aware of that duty. 4. Can I be obligated to a duty without my free will consent? William J Murray
Jerry, passed back.Worldviews can be evaluated on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power on a grand inference to best explanation. KF kairosfocus
However, I believe that worldview stories at the level you sketched yours are not really provable, and perhaps not even especially arguable.
I believe in Leibniz’s “Best of All Possible Worlds” hypothesis. If this is true then what would be necessary for such a world. One requirement of such a world is that many things would definitely not be provable in the sense of QED. But they would be especially likely so most definitely arguable. We see both. jerry
Another candidate for "nature of our existence:" 4. We always utilize our free will to seek out and instantiate, if possible, that which we prefer. Comments? Yea or nay? William J Murray
F/N: On this, clipped with approval by WJM from VL: >>First, “There is not objective morality” isn’t a moral statement. It is a statement about what is (or in this case, what is not), not a statement about what ought to be.>> Actually, only superficially so, once we address what objectivity implies. Trivially, truths are accurate descriptions of entities, circumstances, states of affairs etc. Objective truths are those that go beyond dependence on the perceptions of an error-prone, fallible, finite individual as they are warranted. That is, they have been adequately evaluated as to degree of reliability in claiming truth and have passed the tests to date. Already, duties pervade these. Then, we turn to the subject matter, morality, issues of good and evil, duty, responsibility and the like, as observed, as evaluated in terms of principles and grounds etc. So, we see that this is a root issue already as reasoning about morality inescapably involves duties of warrant influenced by said morality. That's not circular, it is root-level. Beyond, we find that it is therefore a morally freighted issue to claim well-warranted, reliable, credible truth in general, and that this is doubly so on matters of morality itself. So, no, the culturally embedded facts-values dichotomy misleads us to imagine that a claimed objective truth regarding morality is on the facts side of an unbridgeable gulch. The claim, that it is well-warranted, reliable knowledge [itself, strongly evaluative!] that there are no well warranted moral truths, is itself a morality claim of extreme strength, one which has distorted our thought as a civilisation, for centuries. The solution is simple. First, claims to warrant on matters of truth are heavily freighted with evaluations driven by first duties of reason. Yes, even truth claims on physics or math. Second, truth claims regarding morality can accurately describe states of affairs regarding first duties and derived duties, and such claims are often amenable to warrant, which can establish them as objectively true to the standard of responsible action, i.e. moral certainty in a classic phrase [see here]. In some cases, they are inescapably and self evidently true as with first duties of reason. Thirdly, there are cases that are undeniably true, on pain of being self-exposed as monstrous: it is undeniable that it is wrong to kidnap, bind, sexually torture and murder a child for one's pleasure . . . an unfortunately real-world case of acting out snuff fantasies. The denial of objectivity of moral truths falls afoul of all three points. So, it fails. KF kairosfocus
VL, 515: Let me observe on the appeals in your comment: >>KF writes, “We can see from our behaviour that first duties of reason are inescapable,”>> 1: You here cite a fact of citation, which embeds an appeal to truth, expecting people to have a sense of duty towards same. This is of course duty 1 in the list. 2: I will now draw on your responses. >>[VL:} No. >> 3: Disagreement, why? Because you believe my comment to be false and misleading, i.e. fallacious, or against truth, right reason and prudence, perhaps fairness and even conscience. Possibilities include duty to neighbour. 4: If such things were of no account, you would not be trying to show me in the wrong, claims and counter-claims would be meaningless noise, or manipulation. This is of course precisely the point about how we quarrel that was doubtless dismissed as TL-DR above. >>what we see from our behaviour is that human beings make judgments about things.>> 5: What sorts of judgements and why do we expect them to carry weight? Oh, judgements as to truth, reasonableness, prudence, conscientiousness, fairness, justice and the like, IN EXPECTATION THAT WE AND/OR OTHERS AT LEAST FIND OURSELVES BOUND BY THE FORCE OF SUCH ISSUES. 6: In short, we are back to the first duties again. >>Period.>> 7: Here, this is meant to imply that you have delimited the material truth, to which you expect others to conform. Of course, you have missed something, but the appeal is plain. >>We do not see that this is an “inescapable duty arising from the root of reality.”>> 8: Notice, how you constructed a strawman that you wish to knock over? That is, creating a perception of true description, with expectation that it will be accepted. 9: There are two separate issues you have again conflated, in an appeal to in context loaded subtext. one, there is a matter of observation, being again confirmed by how your objection inescapably appeals to said duties in order to have persuasive traction. That is, it is reflecting, inadvertently, the inescapability of the duties, thus their truth and self-evident character on pain of an absurd breakdown of reasonable discussion. 10: Beyond, lies a deeper, logic of being, where does such come from issue. Something that is a matter of inference to best explanation on comparative difficulties across live option worldviews. Where, all views bristle with difficulties which we tend to weigh in a way filtered by our own inclinations, hence the need for reasonably balanced comparison. 11: Nowadays, the major worldviews on offer in our civilisation are ethical theism, evolutionary materialistic scientism (often with linked selective hyperskepticism) and some form of pantheism or the like. The latter two are monistic, and struggle to account for diversity, including -- relevantly -- moral diversity. 12: Where, the exact issue, of our finding ourselves under moral government, even, inescapably to the point where arguments and quarrels are deeply pervaded with implicit appeals to duty, points to issues put on the table through the Euthyphro dilemma and the Hume Guillotine. Once moral duty and mutual obligation manifested in first duties of responsible reason, its source becomes a challenge. And no, psycho-sociological conditioning cannot adequately account for it, that is here a species of appeal to grand delusion that brings our rationality under pervasive discredit. 13: After Hume, we see that no place after the root of reality will be enough to bridge is and ought, i.e. once we find an is -- a class of beings here [us] -- who are morally governed and rationally, responsibly significantly free, then moral government goes down to the source of worlds. If it is to have rationally defensible grounds. Where if such fail, our freedom and rationality with that freedom, come under question. 14: For, we observe things that are mechanically governed through cause-effect chains that are dynamic-stochastic. That is mechanical necessity and chance govern the physical world as we experience it. Including, the organisation, programming and function of computational substrates. Which last includes our brains. 15: Cause-effect bonds, being rationally blind, do not properly account for ground-consequent inferences or best explanation judgements; such require significant freedom to follow canons of logic and prudence if they are to have any credit. That is, we see here that rationality requires freedom, which opens up the gap between the is of what we do and the ought of what first duties point to. 16: So, we find here two different kinds of nature intersecting, especially in our brains. First, the mechanical world with a wetware substrate in a class of creatures showing complex cybernetic loop behaviour. Second, the requisites of en-conscienced rationality and freedom of agency, i.e. distinctively human nature. So, we expect -- and find -- two distinct classes of laws intersecting in us, the mechanical is-is causally bonded chains and the morally governed power of rational choice. (See here, regarding the Smith, cybernetic loop model, with a two-tier controller and the issue of freedom through supervisory influences on neural networks.) 17: The one and the many, thus lurks. The challenge is to have unity amidst diversity with room for genuine responsible, rational freedom. As we are in the stakes, self-referential incoherence or discredit to our own minds, lurks at every turn. Evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers fall first, as they either revert to Crick's error of his astonishing hypothesis . . . and this includes so-called compatibilisms . . . or else they implicitly break apart into hidden appeal to mind-body dualism. 18: Crick's error?
. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
19: The late Philip Johnson has aptly replied that Sir Francis should have therefore been willing to preface his works thusly: "I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." Johnson then acidly commented: “[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” [Reason in the Balance, 1995.] 20: So, evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers fail to account for diversity of natures at the crucial nexus of the materialistic thinker her-/him-self. Self-referential absurdity, which cannot be rescued by the poof magic of strong emergentism, on pain of implicitly trying to draw a rabbit out of a non-existent hat. 21: If it is not rooted in an adequate source, there is no proper explanatory account. 22: The pantheistic-style form of monism also fails, as it cannot adequately found morally responsible individuality reflecting true diversity. Not even in the guise of a mental reality hypothesis, on which individuality is a contemplation or simulation or emanation of the one underlying entity. In this context, the implicit incoherence regarding our in-common physical world should also be reckoned with. Such includes accounting for and making due distinctions regarding good and evil. 23: If we are to take moral government, rational freedom, responsibility and the natural physical world in due balance, we find ourselves looking at a finitely remote stage of beginnings of our causal-temporal world that has descended to us in finite stages [years for convenience], and which beginnings will itself come from a root of different ultimate nature: necessity of being. 24: Such necessary being, to adequately found the sort of moral government we observe, would have to be inherently good and utterly wise, i.e. we are looking at aspects of maximally great being, bills of requisites for root reality. Where, moral diversity comes from the required capacity of choice as the hinge on which rationality and capacity to love turn, opening up a whole class of potential virtues, with the danger of comparable evils through abuse of such powers; duty to neighbour, of course, points to love. Such points to the God of the ethically theistic philosophers as serious candidate, this is not a matter of religious traditions. 25: The comparative difficulties challenge lies open: _______ >> That is your metaphysical interpretation of what we observe.>> 26: Again, appeal to truth and to rational inference, unfortunately vitiated by the strawman conflation just addressed. I have made an observation along with anyone who has observed how we argue and quarrel, noting the pervasiveness of the universal laws Cicero highlighted; further noting that even objectors do not escape their sway. 27: So, following and extending Epictetus' case, I have inferred that we see inescapability and so inescapable truth, which is self-evident. We are morally governed through first duties of reason, to truth, to right reason, to prudence [including warrant for knowledge and fact claims], to sound conscience, to neighbour, so too to fairness and to justice, etc. 28: Epictetus?
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]
>>Other very good possible interpretations exist,>> 29: Do you not see what you just wrote? Very good -- that's an evaluation of duty, and appeal to existence is appeal to duty to truth. You again exemplify what you would object to. This, BTW, tends to undermine the credibility of the judgement behind your onward invited conclusions. 30: Which conclusions, as we already saw, pivot on a strawman conflation of two different arguments that don't even work in the same pattern of logic, the first to self-evident truth is essentially deductive on a readily observed fact claim. The second is a worldviews level, comparative difficulties inference to what best explains, of inductive character and openly inviting another serious and successful candidate to be addressed in substantial detail _____ >> some of which are more in line with other things we observe about human beings.>> 31: Nice, broad summary that hurls an elephant. I must presume you allude to how we acquire our culturally shaped mores and how communities build up legal systems and the like in a very mixed way, reflecting at best, somewhat tainted compromises and our finitude, fallibility, moral struggles, stubbornness and too often hard hearted or rage driven ill will and hostility. In short, the is of performance often falls short of the oughts of duty. But that requires an adequate grounding of duty beyond relativism, subjectivism and emotivism etc (which we have seen, fail) _____ , and it requires an adequate account of responsible, rational, genuine freedom on pain of self-referential incoherence _____. 32: Those blanks are not so readily filled as you suggest. (If you disagree, kindly supply a pair of short but substantial paragraphs, that can of course be backed up with onward links.) KF PS: I had intended to go through a range of snippets that catch my eye, but this one dominated and took up my window of time. Later. kairosfocus
VL said:
First, “There is not objective morality” isn’t a moral statement. It is a statement about what is (or in this case, what is not), not a statement about what ought to be.
Not that I expect you care, but ... well done. William J Murray
Seversky @524 asked:
What do you understand as “free will”?
I understand free will as the capacity to will, or intend, anything you want. "Will" is a mental capacity, not a physical one. It is not "free physical action" because our capacity to act physically is not anywhere near free. Mentally, however, we can desire anything, intend anything, send our mind off anywhere we desire, imagine anything. For example, I can freely intend or imagine or will myself to be able to walk through a brick wall, but it's not going to physically happen. Can we agree that, under the above clarification, free will is part of our existential nature?
I should make it clear that while we agree that all experience occurs in the mind, we differ on the source of that experience.
I understand. That's why I didn't offer the statement "everything exists in mind" as one of the qualities of the nature of our existence.
I choose to believe that what we experience is a mental model of an objective reality constructed from data acquired from that reality through our senses. I can’t prove that to be the case but, for me, it is a better fit for what I experience.
My point was start at the beginning - what is our existential nature? IOW, what can we say with either absolute or a very high degree of certainty are the qualities that describe the nature of our existence? As you point out, there is a big difference between the existential fact that all experience occurs in mind, and the belief that some of that information is coming from an external source. Can we agree that while the theory that a world external of mind is common, that theory does not rise to the same level of certainty as the other three statements?
I’m in no way an expert in this field but it sounds to me as if you are presenting a version of idealism which, from the little I have read, critics have so far been unable to lay a glove on.
So far the only objections were appeals to consequence - that it leads to solipsism or delusion. I fully explained how those objections were not valid in the thread: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-boy-who-cried-solipsism-the-mrt-delusion-objection-is-unfounded/ Notably, KF did not participate. William J Murray
Folks, the assertion "there is no objective morality" is not that same assertion that "you can't get an ought from and is." Hopefully, everyone is clear on that. Different discussions. Concealed Citizen
Good last two paragraphs, Sev. Viola Lee
William J Murray/519
Here is the existential kicker here that few people want to face directly: all experience occurs in mind. That’s an existential fact.
Agreed.
1, our existence is necessarily orderly.
Agreed, we would not exist as such were it otherwise.
2., we have free will.
What do you understand as "free will"?
3, all experience occurs in mind.
I thought we just agreed that. I should make it clear that while we agree that all experience occurs in the mind, we differ on the source of that experience. I choose to believe that what we experience is a mental model of an objective reality constructed from data acquired from that reality through our senses. I can't prove that to be the case but, for me, it is a better fit for what I experience. I'm in no way an expert in this field but it sounds to me as if you are presenting a version of idealism which, from the little I have read, critics have so far been unable to lay a glove on. Seversky
At 521 Sandy writes, "PS: “There is not objective morality ” is an objective moral statement. HAHAHAHA!" First, "There is not objective morality" isn't a moral statement. It is a statement about what is (or in this case, what is not), not a statement about what ought to be. Second, for me it would be more accurate, although unwieldy, to say "It is my belief, tentative and provisional like almost all of my beliefs, that based on the empirical evidence I see around me in the behavior of people, including the thoughts of the world's religions, philosophical systems, and cultures, that it is unlikely enough that objective morality exists that I will live my life based on the alternative belief that it is my responsibility to exercise my moral nature and make moral judgments as best the combination of my heart and head, compassion and rationality, can do." That is considerably different than making a statement about "objective truth". Viola Lee
KF @ 498:
interesting that you raise the issue of the is-ought gap as an OBJECTION.
Objection to you attempting to create morality from non-morality. As WJM adroitly pointed out, your view is nothing more than an ideological premise masquerading as a logical conclusion.
That is, you imply that somehow reasoning is governed by oughtness.
Reasoning is "governed" by making premises and using logic. Your attempt at creating morality (oughts) from non-morality (is) is a category error and not logical at all. Either the morality is "there" in the premises, or never there at all. You can't magically insert morality anywhere in the conclusions.
Which points to a need to reconcile the gap. Interesting, huh?
It is not possible to "reconcile the gap" between non-morality and morality any more than it's possible to reconcile mathematics and morality. They are different categories. Concealed Citizen
re 518: Jerry, that's a refreshingly clear and concise statement of what you believe. I believe differently. One reply to your last line: "But why create and then make it a struggle." Of course one can believe there are reasons, scrutable or inscrutable, for the creator (God in some sense) doing so. However, one can also believe that perhaps because of this question one ought to look for a different kind of answer. However, I believe that worldview stories at the level you sketched yours are not really provable, and perhaps not even especially arguable. People can share theie views, and perhaps share some of what they consider evidence for them, but more in the hopes of expanding someone's views of the possibilities than with the intention of directly changing someone's mind. Worldviews are deeply seated, so the best we can do is plant seeds of new ideas that others might eventual integrate with their current beliefs. Viola Lee
Wow,for someone to play the song "There is no objective morality!" is in fact the song "I shot myself in the foot! " . It's priceless he don't realize that but there is an explanation. When you ignore repeatedly your moral duties that your own conscience send to you , you destroy gradually the capacity of your inner self to detect morality . When you sting your eye with a needle you will ultimately become blind . And you will be 100% "sincere" when you say :I see nothing. Yep ,but because of you got blind not because there is no light . PS: "There is not objective morality " is an objective moral statement. HAHAHAHA! Sandy
Jerry @518 said:
There is a creator of this world and the life in it. This creator has a massive intelligence. ID directly addresses this. It’s everywhere on this site and one of the basic objectives of UD is to support this conclusion.
How all that is sorted depends on the premises of what "this world" is, what it means to create whatever "this world" is, and what "life" actually is. You can't start in the middle and build a case based on unexamined premises.
That creator has objectives for us in this world. This would involve making laws to ensure these objectives.
All currently derived from unexamined premises.
ID does not address this directly so one has to look elsewhere for the truth of this. One place to look for insight is how we we’re created. Natural law or an understanding of human nature provides a lot of evidence on this.
Impossible to reason out without first establishing what our existential nature is. How can one establish what a natural law is without first understanding what nature is?
One way ID does contribute to this is showing that the creator took a lot of care providing a unique world that is conducive to the flourishing of life and humans. This world also requires a struggle so that must be part of the plan and provides some information about our purpose.
All beliefs derived from as-yet unexamined premises.
That creator has objectives for us beyond this world. A place to look for this is if there was someway this creator provided guidance on this objective. Definitely not part of ID or Natural Law and shouldn’t be part of this site. But why create and then make it a struggle?
That presumes qualities and motivations of the creator, not to mention the assumption that the creator made it a struggle, which refers back to our nature and the nature of existence. Unless you start at the top - what is our existential nature? - all conclusions that follow are suspect. You get that wrong (in terms of an unsupportable premise,) you probably get everything underneath it wrong as well. I'll start: at least one aspect of our existential nature is the fundamental principles of logic. At least one more is the absolute validity of math. Basic geometry is also sewn into the fabric of our existence. These three things are likely aspects of a single principle, one you might call "order." Our fundamental existence appears to be necessarily ordered, something we can recognize through logic, math and geometry. They appear to order every mental experience at least fundamentally. Besides that "principle of order," there is free will. Without that, we can't know anything or make any decisions. Here is the existential kicker here that few people want to face directly: all experience occurs in mind. That's an existential fact. 1, our existence is necessarily orderly. 2., we have free will. 3, all experience occurs in mind. Anyone disagree or want to add to that? William J Murray
I agree with Kf’s conclusions in general. I have issues with rhetorical style which I believe gets in the way. Some basic beliefs to debate relative to this There is a creator of this world and the life in it. This creator has a massive intelligence. ID directly addresses this. It’s everywhere on this site and one of the basic objectives of UD is to support this conclusion. That creator has objectives for us in this world. This would involve making laws to ensure these objectives. iD does not address this directly so one has to look elsewhere for the truth of this. One place to look for insight is how we we’re created. Natural law or an understanding of human nature provides a lot of evidence on this. One way ID does contribute to this is showing that the creator took a lot of care providing a unique world that is conducive to the flourishing of life and humans. This world also requires a struggle so that must be part of the plan and provides some information about our purpose. That creator has objectives for us beyond this world. A place to look for this is if there was someway this creator provided guidance on this objective. Definitely not part of ID or Natural Law and shouldn’t be part of this site. But why create and then make it a struggle? jerry
:-) Viola Lee
{/piling on} = more than one person disagrees with me. :) Steve Alten2
KF writes, "We can see from our behaviour that first duties of reason are inescapable," No. what we see from our behaviour is that human beings make judgments about things. Period. We do not see that this is an "inescapable duty arising from the root of reality." That is your metaphysical interpretation of what we observe. Other very good possible interpretations exist, some of which are more in line with other things we observe about human beings. {/piling on} Viola Lee
Viola Lee “ KF bundles all the “fellow travellers” into “evolutionary materistic scientism.”” I have perceived that it is even broader than this. He lumps anyone who disagrees with him on any subject into this “fellow travellers” category. I have been lumped into this category simply because of my views on same sex marriage and morality. Neither of which preclude the existence of a god. Steve Alten2
ET “ And just because someone can tell a lie does not mean there isn’t any objective duty to truth.” If there is an objective duty, why do we have to repeatedly use punishment and positive reinforcement to instil this “objective duty” in our children? All of our children. Steve Alten2
If this is true then why is it the natural reaction of a young child caught with chocolate all over his face to deny taking the cookie without asking?
Because there wasn't any chocolate in the cookie. And just because someone can tell a lie does not mean there isn't any objective duty to truth. ET
KF said:
And, I cannot but observe that the objections reflect the said first duties. KF
Of course you cannot help but observe that; that is how you are programmed by your ideological commitments to interpret what you are observing. Those are the patterns your cognitive biases organize out of the information available. Inescapable (arguendo) behavior does not a duty make. That is so blazingly clear I don't even know how to make it more simple or obvious. Apparently, this is something that cannot be seen or understood within the grip of your programming. To see it, to understand it, would probably shatter your entire sense of self and reality - much like MRT. William J Murray
WJM, I have run into the same problem: the dichotomous theist/materialist assumption. KF bundles all the "fellow travellers" into "evolutionary materistic scientism." Among other things he has no respect for, nor much knowledge of, I think, both Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism (I just read the chapters about those in Huston Smith's "World Religions) and other philosophical positions in Western thought. Viola Lee
VL, The problem here as I see it from years of experience in this forum, is that the bulk of all arguments are formed from a Christianity vs Atheist/materialist perspective. This is why so often anyone that disagrees with any aspect of the Christian perspective is assumed to be from an atheist/materialist. You've probably noticed this assumptive habit. What the Christians and atheists/materialists here are ill-equipped to handle are perspectives that fall well outside of that general framework. I don't know how many times someone has responded to me as if I'm a Christian because I argue against materialism, or how many times Christians label someone a materialist just because they disagreed with some some expressed Christian perspective - like the existence of objective morality. Just because one doesn't believe in objective morality does not mean they don't believe that a God of some sort exists, or that they are materialists. William J Murray
WJM (attn VL and CC et al), no, again. We can see from our behaviour that first duties of reason are inescapable, and that their reality is undeniable; that is to observe its existence. That is, moral government pervades our rational life. The issue of where it comes from is after those observable patterns are established. The answer is, that indeed ought cannot be derived from a bare is that has no moral import. Similarly, it cannot come from any stage of reality after its roots. Thus, we see, in the root and in an is that is simultaneously an adequate root for ought. Such a candidate can be characterised, and it points to a familiar but nowadays often unwelcome figure. And, I cannot but observe that the objections reflect the said first duties. KF kairosfocus
Aaaaand ... this is why I have repeatedly said that until you address the fundamental nature of our existence and defend your perspective on that, all of your arguments are moot because they extend from largely unaddressed assumptions about the nature of our existence. Some of the various qualities you assign to God extend directly from religious/ideological assumptions about the nature of our existence; that's putting the cart before the horse. You don't get to assign self-serving qualities to God just because you prefer them. Make your case that God is necessarily good or wise logically. William J Murray
WJM writes, "the existence of God may still be a necessity, but God could be utterly ambivalent with respect to morality." Yes, this is the "jump" I have objected to when KF goes from math to morals. I can see some validity in the idea that math is embedded in our universe, but I don't see evidence that some maximally beneficient God is also embedded in our universe. KF offers nothing but an assertion when he goes from one to the other, the reason being, I think, is because he actually starts with his religious beliefs in God and builds his philosophy downwards from there. Viola Lee
Kairosfocus, you repeatedly claim that we have an objective duty to truth. If this is true then why is it the natural reaction of a young child caught with chocolate all over his face to deny taking the cookie without asking? Steve Alten2
KF said:
However, the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, wellspring and sustainer of all worlds, a necessary and greatest possible being, would be just such an is that embraces oughtness, indeed would then allows us to coherently understand why we see evils as frustrating things from their proper, often naturally evident ends.
An inherently good God is only necessary if morality is objective. Otherwise, a good God is not a logical necessity. If morality is not objective, the existence of God may still be a necessity, but God could be utterly ambivalent with respect to morality. William J Murray
Jerry @500: re 1: Common behavior does not a moral duty make. re 2: I have said I am not truthful in all situations ("honey, do I look fat?"), I have said I am truthful here, in this forum, because it serves my purpose for participating here. I will be truthful here even though it may (and has) make me look like an unhinged idiot and even if it means losing all "respect" from the people here because I come here to have my views challenged. To have my views meaningfully and properly challenged, I must be be honest about them. None of us know whether or not we are "lying" here; it is proper debate form in a debate to follow the principle of charity and assumption of truthfulness. My logical arguments can be evaluated on their merits; whether I am lying, reputable, or insane has no bearing whatsoever on that. If you're going to tell me that you never lie in any situation, am I supposed to find that credible? I do not experience a "duty" to truthfulness or right reason. Logically speaking, however, if KF's argument relies on the premise that everyone experiences that duty whether they admit it or not, even whether they believe they are experiencing it or not, that is not a logical argument at all. That is pure assumption and projection based on KF's personal experience and ideological, religious belief. William J Murray
I'll be making the following assessment under the paradigm of "objective reality." Let's compare KF's theory of a directly experienced moral landscape to another another directly experienced landscape: the objective physical landscape around us. How much of that landscape do we disagree on? Do we all immediately recognize and agree on what a pen is? A pencil? A house? The sky? The moon? A computer? Paper? Plastic? Water? Concrete? Sand? Television? Radio? Rain? Snow? The sun? A photograph? Music? A book? Can we all differentiate between those things easily and successfully? 99.9%+ of the objective landscape, at least that which we directly experience, is completely, universally agreed on. How much of the supposedly universal, objective moral landscape is completely, universally agreed on? We cannot even agree that it is an objective, directly experienced landscape. If it were an objective, directly experienced landscape, wouldn't we expect to be completely in agreement about 99.9% of that landscape down to the details comparable to what a pen and a piece of paper is? There would be virtually no disagreement and we would all behave in accordance with that objective, directly experienced landscape down to very minute detail. "We disagree on whether or not homosexuality is immoral" would be the equivalent of disagreeing on whether or not fire is the same thing as water. 99.9% percent of "what our moral duties are" would be immediately and obviously identifiable and virtually universally agreed on and virtually impossible to act in defiance of - if they were part of an objective, directly experienced landscape. KF may argue that because we have an inescapable fundamental reliance on logical principles, which requires discerning true statements from false, this means that we have a duty to truthfulness and use of right reason. But, it is only his religious, ideological premise that fuses those particular "is" features with oughts and not others. I don't experience oughts - a duty - to truthfulness or logic any more than I experience an "ought" associated with the necessity of drinking water or breathing air. Is it immoral to have sex outside of marriage? Is it immoral to physically punish a child? Is it immoral to under-report my income to pay less in tax? Is it immoral to divorce? Is it immoral to lie in order to protect the feelings of someone you love ("no, honey, you're not fat at all.") Is lust immoral? Is smoking? Eating meat? Not going to church? Is swearing immoral? Stealing bread when your children are hungry? Is it immoral for me to shoot dead some person who enters my home without an invitation even though he doesn't apparently have a weapon? Is it immoral to imagine killing someone who made you angry? If morality was an objective landscape that is directly experienced, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. William J Murray
Good comments by WJM and Jerry, but I get the feeling KF is not listening. KF is driven by a dogmatic religious view, as shown when he repetitively, "However, the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, wellspring and sustainer of all worlds, a necessary and greatest possible being, would be just such an is that embraces oughtness." KF's response to being critiqued is to repeat, repeat, repeat. Viola Lee
does the fact that I do not directly experience a moral duty to truthfulness or right reason disprove KF’s premise of a directly experienced, objective moral reality?
No. Couple things: 1) it would if it was widespread among humans and not something that seems to be common among most. 2) Your claim that you are not truthful does not imply that you do not have these experiences. You may have them but choose to say you don't have them. You just claimed that anything you say cannot be taken for truth and an actual experience. So this should disqualify you from any further discussion anywhere. jerry
So, if a moral duty cannot be derived from or implied by the fact ("is") of my behavior except under the assumption of KF's premise, and KF's premise is that "oughts" are directly experienced as an is, does the fact that I do not directly experience a moral duty to truthfulness or right reason disprove KF's premise of a directly experienced, objective moral reality? I kinda think it does. William J Murray
CC 491,
no matter what you say, you’re never ever going to get an ought from an is.
interesting that you raise the issue of the is-ought gap as an OBJECTION. That is, you imply that somehow reasoning is governed by oughtness. Which points to a need to reconcile the gap. Interesting, huh? Actually, there is a solution: the Euthyphro dilemma and the Hume Guillotine point to a bill of requisites: an is, at the root of reality that also grounds oughtness. Which sounds like a rather familiar specification. Yes, we cannot draw an ought from an is unless the is in question already embraces and founds oughtness, and anything after the roots of reality faces the challenge, reasoning is-is then jump to ought-ought. However, the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, wellspring and sustainer of all worlds, a necessary and greatest possible being, would be just such an is that embraces oughtness, indeed would then allows us to coherently understand why we see evils as frustrating things from their proper, often naturally evident ends. Of course, if we know that such a being is not, then we cannot reconcile such a gap. But, there is a little sting in the tail there, as we deal with a serious candidate for necessary, inherently eternal being. (Flying spaghetti monsters need not apply, composite of properly separate antecedent parts and so contingent, inter alia.) So, we face the challenge of serious candidate necessary being: either impossible of being [as a square circle is impossible] or else actual. As, if possible of being then in at least one possible world, but as a serious candidate necessary being, framework to any possible world so too the actual one we inhabit. (I do not here imply that there are/are not other worlds, only that such are abstractly possible.) Do you have a good reason to hold that such a being is impossible, especially after Plantinga's free will defense? ________ (That will be fairly hard to fill in, I am afraid.) So, it seems that the common saying about not drawing an ought from an is leaves off the possibility of an is that by nature of its being grounds ought; which rather begs the root level question. KF kairosfocus
Kf, You mention Cicero several times in this OP (his name appears 30+ times by you and others) While Cicero was a gifted writer, he was limited by his time. I would not use him as the ultimate in natural law though a lot of what he espoused makes sense. Instead I would make a much simpler and I believe a much stronger argument. 1) Man is unique. 2) Man has a nature that is common over all human societies. 3) This commonality leads to prescriptions/proscriptions that override local observances especially those that interfere with others. These few observations (maybe amended over time based on new realities) lead to prospering/flourishing of all humans. Whether these aspects of human nature flow from a creator or not will lead to a flourishing world. We can then ask whether this flourishing is enough? I personally believe it is trivial and much more is offered. This is simple and does not require long unread repetitive posts trying to justify your position. For example, I doubt anyone reads your long expositions on Cicero. He was an interesting thinker but advocated slavery. It suited his local situation. Similarly Plato while obviously another gifted thinker is probably the one who justified oppression into the framework of all thinking in Western thought for 2,000 years. Oppression permeated all societies in every part of the world since hunter gathers roamed the plains. Societies that had no idea who Plato was. PS - when I get time I will listen to the lectures on Cicero in the natural law course. Aside; when do you sleep? jerry
The TL;DR version: First, KF says that an is (inescapable, universal behavior) implies an ought. Then, he agrees that oughts cannot be derived from an is (how the does the above "is" imply the ought?"). Rather, he now asserts, that oughts are themselves an "is" (objectively existent) we directly experience via conscience. IOW, they are not implications of a situational is, but are rather a directly experienced component of a situational "is." You can't have it both ways, the ought is either implied by the is, or it is a directly experienced aspect of the "is." William J Murray
KF @490:
For reference, I will again clip in the short form:
Citing quotes from other people who agree with your initial assumption of first duties and how they are supposedly implicit in near-universal behaviors does nothing to further your case.
IS and OUGHT are fused from the root.
. You've just admitted that you cannot get an ought from an is; you're ideologically assuming certain states of "is" have an inherent, objective ought fused to it that can be discerned via conscience (and, of course, evaluated and validated via "right reason.") Thus, your "argument" is built entirely with self-referential assertions. Your premise is that at a transcendental, immutable root source, an "is" (at least in many cases) is inseparably fused with "ought." And so, under that paradigm, certain behaviors must necessarily reveal implicit duties - because you hold your premise as true. IOW, behavior necessarily reveal duties because your premise is true. Your logic extends down from your premise, a premise I (and others here) have not accepted as valid. You have been speaking and arguing to this point as if an "is-ought" relationship can be shown to be fused simply by pointing at necessary or universal behaviors, claiming they "reveal" (evidence) a fused moral duty on their own without the premise when they do no such thing. You cannot get an ought from an is even under your premise. Under your premise, an ought is experienced directly via conscience because of the conscience's root connection to transcendent, objective morality; it is not, and cannot be derived from the "is." When you claim that an "is," in the form of inescapable behavior, implies an ought (duty,) that statement is only valid under the premise of a root fusion between that is and that ought. Without the premise, there is no such "implication," because you cannot derive that "ought" from that "is." Even under the premise, the "is" does not, and cannot, "imply" the ought because the "ought" fused with the "is" is directly experienced via conscience. Then one doesn't imply the other; the one "is" also the other. They are two experiential "is" qualities of a given situation. Now your task is defending your premise that there is an objective root "is" source for "oughts," and you cannot evidence or support your premise by pointing at that which is the result of your premise. IOW, because people exhibit inescapable behaviors does not implicitly mean that they are adhering to an objective duty, because that is only what that means under the logic derived from your initial premise. Good luck supporting your premise without first assuming it is true. I'll enjoy seeing that if you're up to it. William J Murray
CC @487, I don't know how many debates I've been in where the debate is derailed by the other guy insisting his inference was, objectively, my implication whether I admitted it or not. When I tried to explain what I meant, nope, they could read my mind. They knew better than me. KF is certain that morality stems from an objective, transcendent source and is thus written in the hearts of all men and women (and everyone else, for all you gender labeling enthusiasts.) This certainty, from my perspective, is a fundamental subconscious program (represented in the brain, to correlate to your vanilla/chocolate example, as synaptic structure and patterns.) This root program selects, sorts, and interprets all information into agreement with the program. This results in a cognitive arrangement (bias, dissonance, and blindness - among other things) that sustains the program at all cognitive costs because KF has personally, fundamentally identified with that program. I'm not saying that I or that we all don't do exactly the same thing; I guess if there's a "difference" it is that I'm reprogramming myself deliberately into a psychological structure that provides the most enjoyment possible. I hold my beliefs conditionally as testable models only, not as statements of "objective truth." That way if I find or come up with model that appears to be better at serving my interest of enjoying my existence, I can easily suspend the old model and start testing out the new one personally, in my own experience, empirically. But, I don't think KF's particular programming can accept that other people are not operating from the same fundamental right vs wrong, good vs evil, justice vs injustice program set. It would be too disruptive to his self/context identity. Or, if he does, he labels them as "insane," - sociopathic aberrations. Everyone else is, apparently in his mind, lying to themselves to one degree or another. Again, even if I am lying to myself, so what? What difference does it make, as long as I enjoy the delusion I'm living in? Who cares? William J Murray
KF, Your insistence that what I really mean is that a lie is "wrong" appears to me to be just your own projection, based on your own mindset and feelings. IMO, you think you can mind-read because you think your religion gives you an objective road-map into the minds, hearts, souls and nature of all men. I suggest you go back and read #456; and examine the context of how I used "lie" and the following phrase, "at best willful ignorance." Put all of that in the framework of my MRT belief system. Under my worldview, other people cannot wrong me - ever. I cannot "wrong" anyone else - ever. It's literally impossible under MRT to do to anyone else anything that interferes with their own free will. I cannot harm them; they cannot harm me other than in those instances that my own free will not only permits, but requires it. I am entirely responsible for everything I experience - everything. Nobody can ever wrong me. You cannot begin to understand how completely that perspective transforms e