Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

L&FP, 48a: Is the denial of objective moral truth an implicit truth claim about duty to right conduct etc? (Thus, subject to Reductio?)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over the past month or so, there has been an exchange of comments regarding my OP L&FP 48, where I note how New Atheist Stefan Molyneaux, in his “Universally Preferable Behavior” (2007), stumbled across the Ciceronian first duties of reason. As a part of that, sometime objector VL raised the claim:

Obviously, for one to say that it is objectively true that there are no moral truths is absurd. But that is not what those who are arguing against the idea of objective truths are saying . . .

I responded in comment 1110, and think it worth the while to headline that response, with slight adjustments:

>>Saying and pretty directly implying are of course two distinct things. Relativists typically emphasise diversity of opinions among individuals and cultures etc, but that has never been a matter of controversy. Nor, do presumably well informed relativists merely intend [to confess their inexplicable] ignorance of such accurately described states of affairs regarding duty, right conduct etc, they imply longstanding want of warrant and no reasonable prospect or even possibility of such warrant. That is, my summary statement accurately reflects the bottomline stance of relativists.

I thank you for acknowledging that that summary proposition is indeed reduced to absurdity.

Going on, manifestly, we are an error-prone race, and across time, space etc have many, many areas of profound disagreement. The normal procedure in such areas, is to identify sound first principles for the area, starting with first principles of right reason, logic. Then, if self evident first truths can be listed, a framework for the field can be identified and developed into a body of well warranted so reliable and objective knowable truth independent of the error proneness of our individual or collective opinion-forming. From which, we then have a body of knowledge and best practice to work with.

For logic, the general tool, there is an established body of knowledge and Epictetus long since put its branch on which we all sit character on record:

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. We here see the first principles of right reason in action. Cf J. C. Wright]

Notice, the classic framework of a set of first principles: inescapable, so inescapably, self evidently true. Thus, warranted and objective.

Now, regarding our sense of being duty-bound to right conduct etc, conscience is so pervasive that it was only in recent centuries that it was fully seen as distinct from consciousness. Thus, on pain of self-referential discredit to our mindedness, we have to recognise validity of sound conscience and its testimony. Where, soundness implies due application of right reason and prudence towards warranted [so, objective] conclusions and linked due recognition of limits. Where, in the face of risk and uncertainty, prudence points to least regrets and similar precautionary principles. Similarly, “due” is of course directly connected to duty. What we do is under government of what we can reasonably identify as what we ought to do. But, too often, don’t. As a rule, with damaging consequences.

Underneath, is the naturally evident end of cognition, truth, accurate understanding and description of entities, states of affairs etc in reality, whether tangible or abstract. That is, if we regard our mindedness as grossly defective and dominated by our known error proneness we undermine cognition and credibility of mind.

Further to this, we realise we are a common and social race in two complementary sexes with linked requisites of child nurture such that our mutual thriving under the civil peace of justice is a reasonable criterion, i.e. there is to be due balance of rights, freedoms, duties. Where, per sound conscience, a valid rights claim must not be such that it taints sound conscience of others. This, being a coherence criterion.

If you have been keeping track, I have outlined precisely the Ciceronian first duties as are listed in the OP as having been stumbled across by SM:

1: to truth,
2: to right reason,
3: to warrant and wider prudence,
4: to sound conscience,
5: to neighbour,
6: so too to fairness, and
7: to justice,
. . . ,
x: etc.

In short, c 50 BC, Cicero was not putting up random notions but was recognising the sum and substance of centuries of “the highest reason,” on a subject of highest importance, which frames government and sound law.

My comment on this, was to observe a familiar pattern, which again crops up in the latest raft of objections. Namely, that these Ciceronian first duties have the Epictetus characteristic: they are pervasive, inescapable, branch on which we sit first principles. As I noted, even objectors routinely appeal to same in order to gain persuasive power for their objections. For instance, above there is much failed appeal to duties to right reason that I allegedly fail to meet.

The onward point is, from these longstanding classic principles, the moral, legal and governmental ideals and framework of our civilisation was built. As noted above, the US DoI 1776, charter of modern constitutional democracy, is a case in point. But latterly, selective hyperskepticism has been used to undermine such, frankly, the better to promote lawlessness, licence and libertinism at expense of sound governance.

That is, we have had a mutiny on the Platonic ship of state.

Such mutinies don’t end well.>>

A further comment I made in response to VL’s attempt to dismiss an algebraic expression of a reductio of the relativist thesis, is also worth noting, from 1112:

>>[T]he following [duly informed by the just above context that is readily accessible to those who would ponder] is patently not “meaningless”:

Let a proposition [= an assertion that affirms or denies that something is the case, e.g. Socrates is a man] be represented by x [–> symbolisation]
M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case [–> subject of relevance]
O = x is objective and knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [–> criterion of objectivity]

[–> patently meaningful; u/d Jan 8: x is a proposition and is to be tested with regard to having properties O and M, M also being a subject-domain regarding duty to right conduct etc, i.e. morality]

It is claimed, S= ~[O*M] = 1 [–> the there are no objective, warranted, knowable moral truths claim, again meaningful]
However, the subject of S is M, [–> by simple inspection]
it therefore claims to be objectively true, O and is about M [–> pointing out the implicit thesis that relativists claim to know the accuracy of their claim or implication, on warrant]
where it forbids O-status to any claim of type M [–> patent]
so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [–> reductio]

++++++++++
~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above]
~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true]
__________
O*M = 1 [condensing not of not]
where, M [moral truth claim]
So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true]

That is, there are objective moral truths; and a first, self evident one is that ~[O*M] is false.

The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important. [–> square of opposition issues]

Your attempted dismissal fails. The argument is meaningful and relevant to the underlying thesis of relativism. Relativists are not confessing general ignorance and openness to be instructed otherwise, they are rejecting validity of objective claims regarding right conduct etc on grounds of irresolvable difference, demand for tolerance etc.

Of course, due tolerance is an onward objective moral principle. Namely, that as we are error prone and need due freedom of inquiry and community, a fairly wide range of opinion and discussion must be tolerated on pain of undermining liberty. Where, similarly, other credible evils must be put up with and regulated as opposed to abolished due to “hardness of men’s hearts,” pending moral growth of society. An excellent comparison is abolition of slavery starting with the trade and the fate of prohibition as peak temperance movement in the US and how it had the unintended consequence of empowering organised crime. Similar arguments can be made regarding Marijuana.

In short, due tolerance is an objective moral principle and has due limits.>>

What I find further interesting is that in 2018, a posthumous, completed book based on a Manuscript by Dallas Willard came out, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge. That book’s Amazon Blurb reads:

Based on an unfinished manuscript by the late philosopher Dallas Willard, this book makes the case that the 20th century saw a massive shift in Western beliefs and attitudes concerning the possibility of moral knowledge, such that knowledge of the moral life and of its conduct is no longer routinely available from the social institutions long thought to be responsible for it. In this sense, moral knowledge―as a publicly available resource for living―has disappeared. Via a detailed survey of main developments in ethical theory from the late 19th through the late 20th centuries, Willard explains philosophy’s role in this shift. In pointing out the shortcomings of these developments, he shows that the shift was not the result of rational argument or discovery, but largely of arational social forces―in other words, there was no good reason for moral knowledge to have disappeared.

The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge is a unique contribution to the literature on the history of ethics and social morality. Its review of historical work on moral knowledge covers a wide range of thinkers including T.H Green, G.E Moore, Charles L. Stevenson, John Rawls, and Alasdair MacIntyre. But, most importantly, it concludes with a novel proposal for how we might reclaim moral knowledge that is inspired by the phenomenological approach of Knud Logstrup and Emmanuel Levinas. Edited and eventually completed by three of Willard’s former graduate students, this book marks the culmination of Willard’s project to find a secure basis in knowledge for the moral life.

In short, something is rotten in the state of our civilisation and we need to work to recover moral knowledge as a key piece of cultural capital. Or, the consequences will be dismal. END

Comments
L&FP, 48n: The Fair Havens/Malta model for community change https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/lfp-48n-the-fair-havens-malta-model-for-community-change/kairosfocus
January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
L&FP, 48m: The legitimate authority of knowable moral truth in service to justice, thriving and prudence https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/lfp-48m-the-legitimate-authority-of-knowable-moral-truth-in-service-to-justice-thriving-and-prudence/kairosfocus
January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
L&FP, 48L: Can we restore confident knowledge of moral truth? https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/lfp-48l-can-we-restore-confident-knowledge-of-moral-truth/kairosfocus
January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
L&FP, 48k: Dallas Willard on the key self-referentiality in the Relativist thesis that there are no generally knowable, objective moral truths https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/lfp-48k-dallas-willard-on-the-key-self-referentiality-in-the-relativist-thesis-that-there-are-no-generally-knowable-objective-moral-truths/ --> B O'H, thankskairosfocus
January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
L&FP, 48i: Dallas Willard’s (partial) list of reasons for the unwarranted disappearance of moral knowledge https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/lfp-48i-dallas-willards-partial-list-of-reasons-for-the-unwarranted-disappearance-of-moral-knowledge/kairosfocus
January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
Today's addition L&FP, 48i: Dallas Willard on the legitimate authority of knowledge (vs the radical narrative of oppression) https://uncommondescent.com/education/lfp-48i-dallas-willard-on-the-legitimate-authority-of-knowledge-vs-the-radical-narrative-of-oppression/kairosfocus
January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
PS, a key snippet from Willard's handout:
(1). What is the disappearance of moral knowledge? It is the social reality that the knowledge institutions (primarily the universities, but also the “churches”) of our society do not presume to offer knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice to the public. It is not a part of “testable” cognitive content of any recognized area of scholarship or practice. (The illusion of professional “ethics.”) What is knowledge and what does it do? Knowledge is the capacity to represent something as it is, on an appropriate basis of thought and experience. It and it alone confers the right and perhaps the responsibility to act, direct action, formulate policy and supervise its implementation, and teach. This helps us see what disappears along with “moral knowledge.” (2). How did this disappearance come to be the case? Not through a discovery of some kind: e.g. that there was no such knowledge. But through a lengthy historical process of idea change. Some components: (A). The dismissal of theology from the domain of knowledge [i.e. the study and systematic knowledge of God, cf Rom 1:28 - 32], and the failure to find a secular basis for ethics [--> how can evolutionary materialism found ethics?]. (B). Disappearance of the human self and knowledge of the self from “respectable” knowledge. (The “soul” from Plato on.) [--> the self-moved, rational, responsible, conscience guided significantly free agent] (C). All cultures come to be regarded as “equal.” None are morally inferior [--> diversity and radical tolerance]. Just “different.” Then there is no moral truth of the matter across cultures. [--> the denial of warranted, generally knowable objective truth on duty to right conduct, virtue etc; which cf OP has been shown to be self referentially incoherent so false] (D). Moral distinctions and standards viewed as power plays. (Nietzsche, Marx, Freud) [--> might makes right] (E). Fear or resentment of knowledge itself as oppressive. Colonialism. [--> linked disappearing of logic and truth backed by warrant so of knowledge] (F). Growth of the idea that it is always wrong to make moral judgments: that only bad or disgusting people do that. [--> the test case of a kidnapped, sexually tortured, murdered child] Pushes moral judgments out of the public domain. [--> marginalisation] (G). The failure in Philosophy to recover moral knowledge. [--> institutional failure, the mutiny on the good ship civilisation issue]
Food for sober, sobering reflection.kairosfocus
January 14, 2022
January
01
Jan
14
14
2022
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
F/N: I have found a video presentation of the disappearance of moral knowledge thesis by Professor Willard and have added two clips and a link to a handout to 48b. https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/lfp-48b-dallas-willard-and-the-disappearance-restoration-of-authority-of-moral-knowledge/ KFkairosfocus
January 14, 2022
January
01
Jan
14
14
2022
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Lieutenant Commander
Viola Lee Silly!
Is this true?
Viola Lee Yes!
Are you absolutely sure? This is the shortest demonstration of existence of the objective truth.
This is your answer? "Silly?" :))) Let me translate :the word "Silly " means that you make a declaration that certainly you know the truth about something and what I said is obviously false. But I think your attention span last only few seconds so I remind you that you said there are no objective moral truths but to deny that you have to use an objective moral truth -the very thing you try to deny it=SELF-REFUTATION ALERT , SELF-REFUTATION ALERT ,SELF-REFUTATION ALERT ;) . If you really believed that are only subjective moral truths then your "subjective truth" has the same value as my"subjective truth" so why in the world would you say "Silly" unless you make a declaration that objective truth exists and you figured out better than others what is the truth. :) Who allowed you to became teacher should be investigated by police.Lieutenant Commander Data
January 14, 2022
January
01
Jan
14
14
2022
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
L&FP, 48h: Building sound Government on a built-in, Natural Law base (The US Declaration of Independence as a case study) https://uncommondescent.com/laws/lfp-48h-building-sound-government-on-a-built-in-natural-law-base-the-us-declaration-of-independence-as-a-case-study/ --> comments here as usualkairosfocus
January 14, 2022
January
01
Jan
14
14
2022
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
F/N: Reminder on a focal issue, from 48b:
[Dallas Willard, in “Where Is Moral Knowledge?,” 2007:] when I speak of the disappearance of moral knowledge, I am not saying that it does not exist, or that it is unattainable. Those are views sometimes maintained in academic circles and by cultural icons who presume to be “in the know” about such things. I cannot take those views up here, but I believe them to be profoundly and clearly mistaken. I am saying, however, that moral knowledge is no longer, as it once was, readily available to persons in the normal course of their lives. That is “the disappearance of moral knowledge.” We have knowledge of any subject matter when we are capable of representing it as it is on an adequate basis of thought and experience. That is what “knowledge” means in ordinary life, and what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, and physician. The subject matter might be the English alphabet, the history of golf, the structure of the hydrogen atom, or others. The “adequate basis” can, sometimes must, include the word of others who have knowledge. We call our knowledge in that case knowledge by “authority”—though the word is more august than the fact. By far the most of what we know we know “by authority,” but that does not mean that it cannot be questioned or, in most cases, that there are no other ways of discovering it or verifying it. Most people who know the multiplication tables have never yet thought out a tiny portion of them to see for sure, and why, they are true. But they do know them, because those tables are given to them in a social context that warrants their acceptance as true. And they are true, and it is possible for a bright and enterprising child to think them out to see that they are true and why they are. But knowledge can “disappear.” This is because its public presence and availability depends upon the maintenance of a social context with authoritative institutions that sustain, refine and disseminate it. If for whatever reasons social institutions fail to do this, the respective knowledge will “disappear,” cease to be available.
KFkairosfocus
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
JS, I am actually summarising from Plato, it is his framework . . . and again it is evident that after several years, objectors are not familiar with relevant details. His statement about the "Captain" [= Merchant-Owner], with my annotations:
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]
Now, let us consider, and we will see that for cause one does not compose a government by randomly selecting from the general population, whether the legislature or the executive or the judiciary or the senior civil service or the military leadership. There are serious issues of technical capability, decision making wisdom, character soundness, strategic/policy intent and alternatives, ability to respond to surprise or crisis etc to be addressed, and more. All of which require a level of focus and effort sustained for years to attain bare adequacy. Compare say Churchill in WW1 [Dardanelles], in the 20's [fiasco with the Pound], in the 30's, in WW2 and again in the 50's. And no, a legal education is not adequate for this. The general population does not have that capability, but can be educated to a level where they may be able to vote in an informed sound way, or at least prudently. In Socrates' day, failure to be prudent and rising intra-Greek imperialistic intent tainted with corruption led to the fiascos of alienating the wider Greek community from the Athens that had championed them in defending them from Persia. When Sparta emerges as a champion of liberty, something is truly broken. Then, once war began, loss of leadership through plague was a material factor starting with Pericles. Onward, exceedingly foolish decisions such as the attack on Syracuse in Sicily led to disasters and ultimate ruin. The net effect was to discredit Democracy for 2,000 years. Coming to our time, it remains clear that community leadership and technical leadership still require unusual capability and character. The people at large are natural owners of the community and its state, subject to general natural law principles and the like. But, there is no question that capable people of good character etc are needed but often are wanting. And there is a political Gresham's law once a population gets bad political and social habits: bad politics drives out good, as otherwise capable and willing people become alienated by nihilistic, ruthless, dirty factionalism. (Very similar to how unchecked trollishness can drive out sound commentary in a blog.) So, Plato's parable is still relevant. The mutiny on the good ship civilisation has led to undermining of logic, language, history [a key source on learning from errors of the past], moral knowledge foundational to cultivation of virtue, ending in material distortion of policy issues and decision making, an irresponsible media culture and more. We are facing precisely the resulting pattern Plato's Socrates highlighted:
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?
Such, is manifestly suicidal, with nukes in play as a further factor. KFkairosfocus
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
Sev, it is demonstrable that the mutineers are incompetent. The “Captain” is not capable [= general population].
Do you really have that low a regard for the “general population”? The first thing that anyone who has travelled extensively learns is that the vast majority of people, regardless of country, are generous and helpful, and want the same things out of life that you and your neighbours do. You don’t see the glass as half empty or half full. You see it as leaking profusely, with the “general population” trying to tip it over. This in spite of all the evidence that shows that the average human today is much better off than the average human of any time in the past. Longer life expectancy. Lower rates of violent crime. Lower abortion rates. Lower infant mortality. More opportunities for women, minorities and homosexuals. Better health care. You name it. By almost every metric, people are better off today than they have been in the past. Yes, there are challenges. As there have been in every generation. But living life complaining about the modern generation and pining for the past that never was is just a sad, pathetic way to live.Joe Schooner
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Viola Lee Silly!
Is this true?
Viola Lee Yes!
Are you absolutely sure? This is the shortest demonstration of existence of the objective truth.Lieutenant Commander Data
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
VL, changed context again, setting up and knocking over a strawman. The attempted dismissal of the elephant story brings its relevance out; noticeably you sidestep where I actually draw out the issue, both above and as separately headlined . . . a clue as to what is going on; evidently, a strawman hunt. Blind men B1 - 6 are set up to be knocked over as having partial perspectives hastily generalised, whilst the sighted narrator N1 notices disparities and derides their naive absolutism or presumption to have each caught the whole picture. But, in the common post modernist use of this story to dismiss objectivity and synthesis through discussion . . . all that stuff on totalising metanarratives, what is overlooked is that THE NARRATOR IMPLIES THAT S/HE HAS THE KEY OBJECTIVE TRUTH. This identifies and shatters the anti-objective knowledge [moral or general] thesis through self-referential incoherence. The same message in the algebra you have tried to dismiss. Of course, I go on to note positive uses of the story that would help our understanding of scholarship, science, building a consensus of knowledge and even addressing introspection -- and even revelation -- as a potential source of knowledge but all of that is neatly side stepped. Strawmen are a lot easier to knock over. KF PS: I gave the "absolutely sure" joke as a very limited illustration. A clue to that is that I do not normally discuss in terms of absolutes but objective truth. Where, long since, the defeasible nature of most knowledge has been drawn out. What do you think lurks in the very careful formulation, knowledge -- in the common, weak sense used in science and most day to day matters including Courts -- is warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief? Where, science and similar cases have been given over and over as reasons why a defeasible . . . defeat-able . . . definition is given. When or if evidence undermines credibility of a theory or knowledge claim, its credibility or reliability take a hit; hence, open-endedness. That the implicit claim to objectivity by a relativist is not absolutely held does not in any way undermine the force of the reductio. Notice, it is formulated on an OBJECTIVE claim. Just scroll up to the OP. PPS: BTW, the definition of knowledge is an example of the challenges involved in drafting claims and arguments on subjects like this. That seemingly simple definition is anything but simplistic. PPPS, likewise, the framing of the elephant story opens up a world of profitable discussion around research programmes, paradigms, ideologies, common sense knowledge, knowledge in community, knowledge by introspection, power and value of testimony, even how revelation can be part of knowledge. If we were in a less contentious setting, that would be profitable for exploration. Alas, the patterns we see above do not point in that direction for now. But the for reference OP will be there long after the rhetorical brush fires and smoke from burning strawmen soaked in ad hominems in this thread have burned to ashes and cooled off or drifted away with the winds.kairosfocus
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Silly!Viola Lee
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Viola Lee
KF "A: You cannot know the absolute truth! B: Are you absolutely sure of that?”
No one here who doubts objective moral truths has ever claimed to be absolutely sure of that. I have clearly discussed the provisional nature of my beliefs.
:) Looks like you are absolutely sure about a truth [=that you discussed your provisional nature of your beliefs ] Isn't it funny? You deny absolute truth(as a concept) but shamelessly use an absolute truth(the absolute truth that you discussed about your provisional nature of your beliefs and nothing else )
Viola Lee Someone who doesn’t believe in absolute truths obviously doesn’t believe that that belief is an absolute truth.
Are you absolutely sure that what you just said is a truth?Lieutenant Commander Data
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
The parable makes no difference. Someone who doesn't believe in absolute truths obviously doesn't believe that that belief is an absolute truth. It is intellectual malpractice to think that. I, as a representative case, understand that I might be wrong, but taking everything into account that I can, as an educated, mature adult, think that is very unlikely compared to alternative explanations about morals, which I and others have outlined here. This argument, which is what you refer to as a reductio ad absurdum, doesn't apply at all, because the premise that the person is claiming to be making an absolute statement, of which he is 100% sure, is false.Viola Lee
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
PPS, the attempted comeback suggests unfamiliarity with the specifics of the parable [and the real world case in Ac 27], after several years.kairosfocus
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
KF quotes, in seriousness, "A: You cannot know the absolute truth! B: Are you absolutely sure of that?" That is stupid! No one here who doubts objective moral truths has ever claimed to be absolutely sure of that. I have clearly discussed the provisional nature of my beliefs. I suggest you soak that strawman in oil and set it afire!Viola Lee
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
There are several here who think there is something wrong with what he is saying
Then they should write in short declarative sentences what is wrong. It’s one thing to criticize style which commenters have done several times, it quite another to criticize substance. I generally find nothing wrong with his reasoning once deciphered. (exception - I have disagreed with him on some points of history and epistemology but not much)jerry
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Sev, it is demonstrable that the mutineers are incompetent. The "Captain" is not capable [= general population]. In those days the merchant-owner generally hired a technician to be sailing master. KF PS: The first thing is to establish the state of affairs in respect of the unjustified disappearance of moral knowledge. Given known language twisting, there is a constraint on "simplicity." Where, if the reason the story on the blind men and the elephant breaks down is not clear, the problem is a conflicting crooked yardstick being held on to:
There is a seventh man, sighted but even more self-blind, the narrator N1. He quietly takes up the implicitly objective global view and uses it to subvert the perspectives of his perceived blind inferiors . . . . So, we have yet again a case of self reference, inviting incoherence once the implicit objectivity of N1 is improperly used as a magic key to discredit B1 – 6. No, instead we must realise the self-reference and refrain from the relativist’s error. The denial or suggestion that there is no knowable, warranted, objective truth is subverted by the self reference of the narrator’s implied account.
Self-referential incoherence is the key point where the relativist's general conclusion breaks down, again and again. A: You cannot know the absolute truth! B: Are you absolutely sure of that?kairosfocus
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
That is, we have had a mutiny on the Platonic ship of state. Such mutinies don’t end well.>>
But what if the captain is an incorrigible incompetent and the mutiny is raised by experienced navigators who see the captain has set their vessel on a course that could lead to its foundering on hidden shoals?Seversky
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Maybe there is an external audience we are unaware of.
That is definitely possible.
There is probably nothing that is wrong in his postings, just hard to decipher and certainly not necessary for the two dozen readers that will visit them.
There are several here who think there is something wrong with what he is saying. But it is self-evident :) that his writing style is unnecessarily convoluted and overly verbose.Joe Schooner
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”Seversky
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
LCD: good suggestion, although 14 (8th graders) might be a more realistic target.Viola Lee
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
@KF ,do you have children? You should formulate your answers here as for children not older than 4 years old. You have to think at some kind of explanations that have very simple concepts (eventually with kitties and puppies )and not more than 20 words.Lieutenant Commander Data
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
What do you think isKF’s goal is for posting these hundreds of thousands of words
Maybe there is an external audience we are unaware of. There is probably nothing that is wrong in his postings, just hard to decipher and certainly not necessary for the two dozen readers that will visit them.jerry
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Mania.
Quite obvious, don't you think? What do you think isKF's goal is for posting these hundreds of thousands of words. Surly he doesn't think that his efforts at UD will make any difference to society. Or even change anyone's mind at UD.Joe Schooner
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
--> highlight: [Athenian Stranger:] "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?"kairosfocus
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
1 2 3 9

Leave a Reply