|
olin posted:I find the lack of objectivity in non-theistic moral systems to make them unfeasible. To murder a random person is wrong. That is not merely an opinion but a fact. I couldn't ascribe to an ethical system that just says "Well, I don't want to murder a person because it would make me feel bad therefore I don't do it." This survey (from 2009) of professional philosophers indicates that ~73% of them are atheists, ~56% are moral realists, and ~66% are cognitivists about moral judgment. So you're operating from a mistaken premise; it is simply false that the majority of non-theistic moral systems have given up on objectivity. Edit: I know that doesn't follow directly from the numbers, if, for example, the 15% who identified as theists swung entirely for realism and cognitivism, but even then there are at least some theists who are not divine command theorists, and we should count their moral systems as 'non-theistic' as well, most likely. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 17:01 on May 19, 2016 |
#
?
May 19, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
Anos posted:Would it be moral if God asked you to torture a child? Taking my definition of God, all goodness, love and truth, your question reads "What if God was not God." It's nonsensical.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
olin posted:In utilitarianism wouldn't you be obligated to torture an innocent child to death if your doing so would save 10,000 other lives? Any real-world application of utilitarianism has to take both uncertainty/ignorance and the utility of the rule established when answering a question like this. So, in an absurd situation where you know 100% for sure that torturing a child would save 10,000 lives and your decision will never ever no matter what influence others to treat torturing children as not such a bad thing, maybe. But in the world we actually live in, neither of those premises are true, and both are important when evaluating the utility of an act.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
olin posted:Taking my definition of God, all goodness, love and truth, your question reads "What if God was not God." It's nonsensical. 'God' isn't doing any conceptual work here. If a non-theist thinks that goodness, love and truth are positive values then they come to the same (normative, if not metaphysical) conclusions.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Any real-world application of utilitarianism has to take both uncertainty/ignorance and the utility of the rule established when answering a question like this. Hypothetical questions are used to draw out the underlining principles. They are not meant to describe actually existing situations. And also you just admitted that under certain circumstances it is morally correct to torture an innocent child to death. Your ethical system is bankrupt.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
olin posted:Taking my definition of God, all goodness, love and truth, your question reads "What if God was not God." It's nonsensical. But how did you determine that its not "goodness, love and truth" or Gods nature to torture children? How did you arrive at your definition of good. Is it a biblical claim or do you "just know".
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
However, in the world we live in, it is arguably the case that utilitarianism demands that straight people be prioritized above LGBT people, because you can produce a case that the happiness produced by denying equality to LGBT people is greater than the happiness produced by establishing equality for LGBT people. Now, this isn't incontrovertible, but it is a massive flaw with utilitarianism that it requires deontological additions in order to force egalitarianism as necessarily the greatest good for the greatest number.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
olin posted:Hypothetical questions are used to draw out the underlining principles. And also you just admitted that under certain circumstances it is morally correct to torture an innocent child to death. Your ethical system is bankrupt. Even if my ethical system were strictly utilitarian (which is something I continue to actively consider, and I haven't come to a definite conclusion), a hypothetical situation that cannot occur in real life illustrates nothing. There are literally no circumstances where I would be called on to make a moral decision without uncertainty, so my moral system must take uncertainty into account, and the existence of uncertainty stops me from ever sanctioning the torture of a child.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Anos posted:But how did you determine that its not "goodness, love and truth" or Gods nature to torture children? How did you arrive at your definition of good. Is it a biblical claim or do you "just know". Read Husserl. There are things we can know through an insight he calls eidetic intuition. Or at least I'm open to that idea. It's one possible explanation. The fact of the matter is, everyone reading this thread knows it is wrong to torture an innocent child. That we all know this is evidence of something.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Basically the reason I said "maybe" in response to "would you torture a child in those circumstances" wasn't just waffling, it's like asking someone who's moral system is theistic what they would do if God didn't exist. It might reveal something about them personally, about the intuitions that underlie their ethics, but it says very little about their moral system because it rejects the premises that their moral system is based on.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
olin posted:Hypothetical questions are used to draw out the underlining principles. They are not meant to describe actually existing situations. And also you just admitted that under certain circumstances it is morally correct to torture an innocent child to death. Your ethical system is bankrupt. Question: Do you believe in hell?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Morality is not commandments from God, nor is it a logical system. Deontology fails because it does not recognize context. Morality from God fails because what is to stop God from changing the rules of morality? Is God's subjectivity our objectivity? That makes no sense to me, but people can believe all sorts of things. Morality is, in large part, a matter of ambiguity. It is not always known what the right thing to do is, sometimes we do the thing we consider wrong knowingly, the context of a situation may provide conflicts in moral understanding. Morality is, in my opinion, the most complex human concept. If that is true then it is doubtful that it will fit nicely into any logical system or that any moral claim can and will always be absolute. Rakosi posted:Pretty sure you can compare cultures where stealing is okay and stealing is not okay and see how well the populations are getting on, scientifically. It's been said before, also, that giving women the right to own their own property, the right to work, access to education and freedom over their own reproduction raises the economical and sociological floor of any mud-hut 3rd world village. There are lots of moral values that can be shown through scientific method to be the best, or at least a good, way for human societies to function under. You're not addressing the OP's point. You're saying that you believe stealing is wrong because it is practically beneficial to human societies as wholes. That's consequentialism, not science. Because it IS beneficial to society that I provide healthcare to people says nothing about whether or not I OUGHT to provide healthcare to people. You assume that people should not steal because most people don't steal. What if most people did steal and derived pleasure from it? What if, as in Nazi Germany, most people though it was right to agree with Hitler? I don't agree with the OP, but at least I take his issue for the serious one it is. Elukka posted:I just don't claim my morals are some sort of objective truth. They're what I subjectively believe, and they have everything to do with how my brain works and the species and society I come from and nothing to do with universal truths. While I think it's fairly important to understand which of your beliefs are objective and which are fundamentally subjective, you can well hold on to both. We as humans are free to take up subjective beliefs regarding morality and recognizing them as such doesn't make them any less important for us. (or any less necessary for the functioning of any sort of society for that matter) And this is why you have no good reasons for telling other people they ought to also like the color orange. And since you claim that your moral beliefs are of the same type, the same is true for your moral beliefs. If you have no grounds for holding others responsible based upon your moral beliefs then morality falls apart. The point of morality is the ability to claim that one ought to act a certain way. If we have no logical grounds from which we can tell others what they should and should not do then there is no such thing as morality. This is the OP's point.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Here's the correlation for atheism/theism and anti-realism/realism from the survey I mentioned a few posts ago.code:
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Even if my ethical system were strictly utilitarian (which is something I continue to actively consider, and I haven't come to a definite conclusion), a hypothetical situation that cannot occur in real life illustrates nothing. There are literally no circumstances where I would be called on to make a moral decision without uncertainty, so my moral system must take uncertainty into account, and the existence of uncertainty stops me from ever sanctioning the torture of a child. Rejecting hypotheticals and thought experiments because "they can't happen in real life" is antithetical to doing philosophy.One of the reasons that people today score about 30 points higher on IQ tests then 100 years ago is that people are more able to answer questions with hypothetical premises. Also, lets say ISIS captured you and a bunch of other prisoners. The terms of release for all the prisoners were for you to kill the child prisoner. Otherwise they would behead you all in one week. Is that real world enough for you? AARO fucked around with this message at 17:13 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
olin posted:Rejecting hypotheticals and thought experiments because "they can't happen in real life" is antithetical to doing philosophy. Also, lets say ISIS captured you and a bunch of other prisoners. The terms of release for all the prisoners were for you to kill the child prisoner. Otherwise they would behead you all in one week. What if the child volunteers to allow himself to be killed in return for the release of everyone else?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
olin posted:Rejecting hypotheticals and thought experiments because "they can't happen in real life" is antithetical to doing philosophy. Also, lets say ISIS captured you and a bunch of other prisoners. The terms of release for all the prisoners were for you to kill the child prisoner. Otherwise they would behead you all in one week. A refutation of utilitarianism, even if you had one, is not the same thing as an argument that non-theistic moral systems are even usually non-objective. That is the crucial claim that you've made about theism and moral philosophy, and so far the only support you've given for this position is a story about a friend of yours. Edit: You have two argumentative routes available to you: either you can argue as a sociological fact that non-theistic moral philosophers are anti-realists about moral facts, or you can make the metaethical claim that non-theistic moral realists are committed to a contradiction, or that they have insufficient justification for their positions. I have demonstrated that the former claim is false as a matter of fact. So far you have not attempted to produce an argument towards the latter route. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 17:16 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Utilitarianism requires that you first set goals, or targets, against which every decision is measured. The goals chosen are not morally better than any others, they merely are the ones you as a group or individual are trying to achieve. I don't think torturing a child, or oppressing minorities, would be beneficial to the kind of goals I, or indeed most people, would agree with. However, some other society might see that differently. What is right is determined by what you are trying to achieve, and how you define that. Utilitarianism does not make ethics "easy". There are no shortcuts.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What if the child volunteers to allow himself to be killed in return for the release of everyone else? That would be a great act of self sacrifice on that childs part. What if you were able to answer hypothetical questions in a philosophy thread?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Hello hi sort of butting in here but I have a question regarding the KCA. I looked at a summary of it and it seems to be the old "Everything has a initial event that creates it, therefore the universe must have an initial event/creator". Before I dive into the KCA, I want to know— does it have an explanation for where God comes from? That seems to be the part that sort-of argument can never deal with.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:A refutation of utilitarianism, even if you had one, is not the same thing as an argument that non-theistic moral systems are even usually non-objective. That is the crucial claim that you've made about theism and moral philosophy, and so far the only support you've given for this position is a story about a friend of yours. I do suppose that I assumed his total rejection of absolute morality was quite a bit more common among atheists. Juffo-Wup posted:Edit: You have two argumentative routes available to you: either you can argue as a sociological fact that non-theistic moral philosophers are anti-realists about moral facts, or you can make the metaethical claim that non-theistic moral realists are committed to a contradiction, or that they have insufficient justification for their positions. I have demonstrated that the former claim is false as a matter of fact. So far you have not attempted to produce an argument towards the latter route. I agree, I have some research to do. AARO fucked around with this message at 17:20 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Utilitarianism requires that you first set goals, or targets, against which every decision is measured. The goals chosen are not morally better than any others, they merely are the ones you as a group or individual are trying to achieve. Well, dude, I went with the very common goal of maximizing happiness in order to make that argument. Can you formulate that in such a way as to categorically exclude my argument without relying on deontological priors concerning what "real happiness" is or whatever? The Unholy Ghost posted:Hello hi sort of butting in here but I have a question regarding the KCA. The whole point is that there must be an initial event with no priors.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
olin posted:That would be a great act of self sacrifice on that childs part. But would it then be moral to kill the child? quote:What if you were able to answer hypothetical questions in a philosophy thread? Make better hypotheticals if you don't want people asking questions to clarify them.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Hello hi sort of butting in here but I have a question regarding the KCA. No, I think the conclusion of the argument is supposed to be that an infinite chain of dependent entities is inconceivable/impossible, and therefore that there must be a non-dependent entity to ground the chain. Call that entity 'God' and you're like halfway there I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:No, I think the conclusion of the argument is supposed to be that an infinite chain of dependent entities is inconceivable/impossible, and therefore that there must be a non-dependent entity to ground the chain. Call that entity 'God' and you're like halfway there I guess. A problem with the KCA (one of many) is that it provides no means of knowing anything about the thing it calls "God", much less that it's specifically Craig's version of the Christian God.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
olin posted:I agree, I have some research to do. That's okay! Ghost of Reagan Past's link from the first reply to this thread would be a good place to start. Who What Now posted:A problem with the KCA (one of many) is that it provides no means of knowing anything about the thing it calls "God", much less that it's specifically Craig's version of the Christian God. I think this is right. Most proofs of God's existence, even if they establish the existence of some entity, fail to establish that that thing possesses all of the properties it would take for a reasonable person to call it divine.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:No, I think the conclusion of the argument is supposed to be that an infinite chain of dependent entities is inconceivable/impossible, and therefore that there must be a non-dependent entity to ground the chain. Call that entity 'God' and you're like halfway there I guess. But both ideas— an infinite chain or a single beginning without origin— are inconceivable to the human mind. Eh, sounds like the KCA isn't that great.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:But both ideas— an infinite chain or a single beginning without origin— are inconceivable to the human mind. Nope, they're not. The fact that we can talk about them makes them conceivable. We don't have an experience of them, but that's piffle. Nobody experiences supernovas either.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, dude, I went with the very common goal of maximizing happiness in order to make that argument. Can you formulate that in such a way as to categorically exclude my argument without relying on deontological priors concerning what "real happiness" is or whatever? Do you truly believe people living in a state of prejudice and ignorance are maximally happy in the long term?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:But would it then be moral to kill the child? No. If I jump in front of a bullet, just before the killer fires at Mary, I have done a heroic act in sacrificing my life for Mary If some 2nd party pushes me in front of the bullet in order to save Mary, he has participated in my murder. It's a very simple distinction between voluntarily offering oneself vs actually playing an active role in the unjust murder.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Do you truly believe people living in a state of prejudice and ignorance are maximally happy in the long term? So, you can't do it with utilitarianism alone. Concession accepted.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Maybe you could expand on what you mean with deontological priors W/R/T this argument.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
olin posted:No. If I jump in front of a bullet, just before the killer fires at Mary, I have done a heroic act in sacrificing my life for Mary No one pushing the child in front of the bullet, the child is doing it willingly in this version of the hypothetical, "jumping in front of it", as it were, in order to save his fellow prisoners. To put it another way, would it be moral to stop you from jumping in front of a bullet to sacrifice yourself for Mary? I will have saved your life by allowing Mary to die. If I don't stop you, am I complicit in your murder for not saving you?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Maybe you could expand on what you mean with deontological priors W/R/T this argument. Your statement that people "in a state of ignorance and prejudice cannot be maximally happy" is built on an adherence to a prior rule, deontology, rather than purely utilitarian principles about maximizing happiness.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Your statement that people "in a state of ignorance and prejudice cannot be maximally happy" is built on an adherence to a prior rule, deontology, rather than purely utilitarian principles about maximizing happiness. Unless he intends that to be an empirical claim, ofc?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:
He pretty convincingly argues that If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who is changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful. Those qualities would meet most definitions of divinity.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Unless he intends that to be an empirical claim, ofc? If you can definitely objectively quantify happiness, you've got more important things to do than engage in this silly argument. Publish, publish, publish, drat it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
olin posted:He pretty convincingly argues that If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who is changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful. Those qualities would meet most definitions of divinity. It tells us nothing about that god's character, though, or if it even has any. It could very well be an unthinking, unfeeling force. You can't go from Kalam to "therefore Yahweh."
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
That's an interesting question. [derail] I was at a friends apartment many years ago when I was 17 and the guys in the apartment next door sold drugs. They were really nice guys, we'd smoke with them occasionally. One night, we heard 4 masked men burst into the apartment, beat them, and steal all their money and drugs. After a few minutes of listening to the neighbors scream I grabbed a butcher knife and tried to go help them. My friends physically restrained me from going over. Then they called the police. Found out later that the four masked men all had guns. Had my friends let me go over with the butcher knife I'd probably have gotten shot/be dead now. [/derail]
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
olin posted:That's an interesting question. ...and?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
I guess it would be moral for you to stop me from jumping in front of Mary, but i'm really not sure. It certainly wouldn't be a seriously immoral act. edit: Your question does point out the reasonableness of thinking utilitarianistically at some points. For example if Mary had 4 children totally dependent on her and I'm just a bachelor slob, I think you shouldn't stop me from jumping in front of the bullet. But if Mary is single and has no responsibilities while I have 4 children dependent on me, I think you should stop me. AARO fucked around with this message at 17:51 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:45
|
|