Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
you don’t think before you act
This is both incorrect and insulting. That and the fact that you still have yet to share your axioms (from which you will presumably build to your god claim) leads me to believe that you have no intention of discussing your position honestly. I look forward to being proved wrong in the next post by being treated to an in depth look at these axioms. I thank you for this in depth look in advance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I know I don't have the answers. That doesn't obligate me to accept your explanation (for whatever it is we are talking about) if you cannot back up your claims to any reasonable degree or even really explain what you are saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Your reason was unconvincing. I'm sorry. What would be convincing is some demonstration within the physical universe of whatever it is you are actually proposing. You still haven't even explained exactly what it is you believe or why you believe it so it is actually a little hard to evaluate your claims at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Let me rephrase. Even taking my experience of the physical universe as more or less representative of reality what observable demonstrable reason is there to think that there is an afterlife or (and I can't stress enough that these are two separate issues which would need to be demonstrated independently) of any god(s).
If I'm being honest with you most people who want you to clarify if you "lack belief" or "believe there is no" are trying to shift the burden of proof. Do pull the old switcheroo and turn the conversation from show me your god to show me no god is possible. I am not claiming no god is possible. I'm claiming that no god is evident and that there is no reason to suspect that there is one until there is reason to suspect there is one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do you know it can’t be demonstrated? That requires you to know what happens when you die, how do you know?
What reason is there to think that anything happens after you die? In any case if there is truly no way to know if there is some afterlife (as yet undefined) before death than it is still irrational to believe anything before then. That is a very poor argument for believing in something while you are still alive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I am saying the same thing about god(s) as I am saying about ghosts and alien abduction. I have no reason whatsoever to take any hypothesis seriously that proposes something that cannot be demonstrated. I hardly believe in things that can be demonstrated and only because it is expedient to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That being said if you are more comfortable using the term agnostic I do not necessarily object so long as you understand that the language you use does not change my position or bring me any closer to maintaining a belief in any god(s).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I did not call myself either in our discussions but some clarification seems to be in order. Gnosticism and theism are separate issues. one is concerned only with belief in god(s) the other is concerned with knowledge (or at least the claim of knowledge. There are both gnostic and agnostic atheists and also gnostic and agnostic theists. There are even religious atheist like daoists and some Buddhists. I am in fact an agnostic atheist. I know of no sufficient evidence for any god(s) and as a result I do not believe in any god(s).
Unlike my experience of reality however no god(s) are observable even if I accept reality at face value. I have far less confidence in the existence of some god(s) than my confidence that you exist or that Tahiti exists. The difference is that although I have never seen you or Tahiti I have examples of people and physical locations in my experience. Presumably reality exists and if so people exist and so I can believe that you are A) exist and B) are a person. By contrast I have no experience of any god(s). The most reasonable position is to believe only in those things which can be demonstrated. I understand the weakness in this which is my inability to verify my experience except through my experience but assuming that I can learn or know things I have learned of no and know of no god(s).
Does that explain my position? I don't care if you agree at the moment. I'd like to begin with just understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Uncertainty is a hallmark of the human experience. I am comfortable if not entirely satisfied with "I don't know" as being the most honest answer to mote questions than not.
I understand that this can be difficult to accept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It’s kind of hard not to engage in those things and stay alive, are you sure that’s what you meant?
I mean that the experiences I have give every impression that this is the case. If what I am experiencing is real and I neglect my senses enough to wander into dangerous situation then I have every reason to suspect that I will stop experiencing things altogether and even if it isn't I have no wish to experience the possible pain. I don't necessarily have to believe in this reality to justify living my life just as I always have. There is benefit to learning about this framework and reacting to stimuli in a way that is likely to promote (possibly illusionary) happiness and avoid (possibly illusionary) pain.
I am not trying to win you over to this point of view, in fact I am perfectly willing to accept this reality at face value. It hardly makes sense to engage with you while simultaneously denying your existence and personhood. That being said even if I accept reality at face value there is no sufficient evidence to believe that any god(s) are a part of this reality. The same goes for ghosts, goblins, unicorns, leprechauns, alien abduction, bigfoot,the loch ness monster and any kind of intrinsic objective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You can’t be so vague with me, what kind of experiences?
Sight, smell, taste, touch and sound at least.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And I’m saying if you don’t believe there’s proof validating your emotions then you shouldn’t have them.
I'm not sure what this means. Validate my emotions how? Prove them to whom?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Also and I can't stress this enough the actual experiences themselves can constitute a reason to engage. Some experiences are enjoyable while others are unenjoyable or even distressing or painful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You literally said emotions is the sole reason behind your decisions, what did you mean to accomplish by telling me that? That being impulsive is reasonable? Are you suggesting that I should be impulsive in that same regard?
I am not suggesting that you do or believe anything. I am simply explaining what I believe and why I believe it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
“to participate and engage reality”?
A good example would be having this conversation with you and affording you respect as an interlocutor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That’s not how logic works you can’t prove a negative, and you can emote all you want but if you believe others should have the same emotional appeals then you’re gonna have to provide something more than a fallacy to be convincing.
What is it you think I am trying to convince you of? These are my axioms. You don't have to share them in order for us to have a discussion but it couldn't hurt if you at least understand them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
All things being equal but all things are not equal and I do have reasons at least even if none of this is real. Even if my hand doesn't exist it still hurts when it is closed in an equally nonexistent door. This isn't rocket science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I did warn you that you might be defining morality out of existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
"I have yet to be presented with any sufficient evidence of morality although I am aware of human systems of accountability, even if only to oneself".Why are you linking morality with accountability?
I am not. I am dismissing morals (as here defined) altogether from the discussion until you A) present evidence sufficient to warrant belief in a higher power (as yet undefined) and B) somehow prove that the moral pronouncements of this higher power are somehow more than a system of accountability no different than a human one and determined entirely by the higher power in question's subjective opinion.
Systems of human accountability are simply all that is left in morality's place to explain human behavior. I find that it is a sufficient explanation for the world of human interaction that I have observed. No morality needed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Presumably my organic human brain's best approximation of reality such as it is. I cannot devise a test however which doesnot rely directly on this input so I cannot be completely certain. I can however be certain that this is the only reality of which I am aware. That being the case there seems no sensible reason not to interact with it as though it were real (more or less) until I am presented with definitive proof one way or another. In other words I don't know with absolute certainty that anything exists but in a much as I don't have a reason to participate and engage reality I also have no reason not to and I do have emotional attachments within that framework which actually encourages interaction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
@Theweakeredge
Weaker
We seem to have a problem with definitions here. Would you mind for the sake of clarity to the reframing of your thread title to "of course morality doesn't exist only systems of human accountability, even if only to oneself?"
Tarik
May I add tha I personally would soften that even further to read "I have yet to be presented with any sufficient evidence of morality although I am aware of human systems of accountability, even if only to oneself".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
My most fundamental and basic axiom is as follows.
I am experiencing something.
That's it. That is all I can be 100% sure of. Even if the I in 'I am' turns put to be nothing more than the sum total of the experiential data.
Any attempt to address this experience or to communicate with any other apparent conciousnesses within it (other people for example) requires that I first accept the experience I am having more or less at face value and I cannot actually falsify this proposition. That being the case any proposition within that framework that cannot be falsified even if I do make the assumption that my personal perceived reality reflects some 'actual' reality must therefore be dismissed as doubly insupportable.
(Restated from previous)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Perhaps we could start with something more fundamental. If understanding one another's viewpoint is our goal in these discussions then it couldn't hurt to start with our starting assumptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
We don't even need to discuss what makes the moral pronouncements of a higher power we are discussing objective before the higher power is demonstrated.Well at least you believe the higher power is demonstrated, I rest my case.
In order to dismiss the idea of morality (as here defined) as unfalsafiable and therefore worthy of dismissal from our arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Once you realize how depressing and confusing nihilism is maybe then you’ll change your mind.
I am not a nihilist I am a skeptic. I find meaning in many things. I simply recognize that what is meaningful to me may not be meaningful to you. For me promoting human wellbeing is meaningful as a goal in and of itself and I don't need the universe to agree with me in order to try to promote human wellbeing any more than you need to really have a definite understanding of what ever system of ethics you imagine some god(s) must have in order to try to live up to your best understanding of them. Hell the god(s) you believe in would not even necessarily have to actually exist for you to be doing your very best to please this hypothetical figure. That would be your subjective understanding of what you call morality (which you have still not demonstrated to exist).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't believe in morality as we are using the term in this discussion. That is what I am trying to tell you. I am not proposing anything new or that you cannot observe for yourself.
You believe that if some higher authority (as yet undefined) does not sign off on an idea or attitude that it cannot be moral. I am agreeing to that definition but as there is no sufficient reason to believe in any higher power that I have yet presented with there is by necessity no reasonable logical need to believe in morality at all (as defined here).
The universe need not approve or disapprove of my actions for me to care about myself and other humans and as far as I'm aware I don't need a reason to care beyond being a human with a reasonable amount of empathy myself in order to care about myself and other humans.
We don't even need to discuss what makes the moral pronouncements of a higher power we are discussing objective before the higher power is demonstrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So taking responsibility for your actions is subjectively moral? You still have to prove that.
I am not proposing that any given human will take responsibility for their actions. I am only arguing that the thing you call morality (and preclude by definition any other possible idea of what constitutes moral) and which I have agreed upon definitionally for the purposes of this conversation does not exist. I am not arguing that the systems I observe humans to adhere to are intrinsically moral or correct but in fact the exact opposite. That nothing intrinsically moral can be demonstrated at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
It occurs to me that the road you are heading down is much more likely to lead to an indictment of capitalism as opposed to women's reproductive rights. This is not I think a mistake on your part. I think it is an illusion. Let us nevertheless review your argument and discuss. Abortions are sold as a service. Services are offered by businesses. A business is more interested in their bottom line than in a woman's right to choose (not to have an abortion) and therefore businesses in general that offer the service make their service as appealing as possible. This has the effect (intended or not) of making abortion seem like an attractive alternative. (If I have misunderstood any part of your argument please feel free to correct me)
This is of course the advertising you get from any good or service under a capitalist system. That isn't in and of itself a bad thing but the only alternative is to introduce government oversight of the "industry" in question. For example warning labels being required for cigarettes and other toxic products.
So the question becomes what government oversight should be applied and to what end?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So what? That doesn’t answer the big question in terms of morality.
Oh I thought you understood. I don't believe in morality as you are presenting it only in systems of human accountability, even if only to oneself. At least not unless you can demonstrate any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes you are, I don’t believe in subjective morality.
We don't have to call it that. We can call it "systems of human accountability, even if only to oneself" if you like. It's a bit more cumbersome but changing what we call it doesn't really change what it is.
Whatever reason isn’t a reason, and if that’s the case there’s also no point of getting along with one another.
I am not saying we ought to have some reason only that most of us do have some personal justification for our actions and attitudes. I am presenting an is not an ought. You are the only one here claiming that there is some objective reason to get along. I am only arguing that we as humans do seem to get along enough of the time to form societies and other social groups.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
If such a thing exists then your claims are wrong.
Agreed. Now you just need some proof that this is the case. Perhaps something other than imagery interpreted through some personal aesthetic which we may both disagree about the meaning of and still both be wrong about the motivations of the creator of said imagery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You see I'm not arguing that anything exists that we do not both agree exists. If you would like to say that morality cannot exist sans some god(s) then there just isn't any reason to believe in morality. Just people trying their best to get along with one another for... whatever reason. From there it is up to you to show that there is anything more to appeal to and then to demonstrate SEPARATELY that this something more is something more than some god(s) subjective opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I know that YOU regard them as moral systems and the people that agree with YOU regard them as moral systems, don’t be so sensitive.
I am comfortable using your preferred definition of morality. Just be careful not to define morals out of existence. That to would lead to the end of this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And that these systems are referred to at least colloquially as moral systems?They’re only referred to in that regard by people who think like you.
You know how I think? Well then I guess we are done. I guess I don't have to explain anything else to you ever again. That's a huge relief. Still there remains the possibility, however marginal, that you are incorrect in your assumptions about my thought process. If you are interested in exploring that possibility let me know. Otherwise as I said I will retire from the conversation secure in the knowledge that, already knowing how I think, I need not waste my time having any further discussion of the issue with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I don't suppose you would like to summarize your objections? I understand you read a thing that you like but the fact remains that no organization in that I am aware of focuses on abortion procedures rather than simply offering them IN ADDITION to other services and no organizations promote the performance of abortions regardless of their advocacy for their availability.
Again a summery of why this is incorrect would be greatly appreciated the strength or veracity of your cited article asside.
Again a summery of why this is incorrect would be greatly appreciated the strength or veracity of your cited article asside.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You mean not providing support of my claims? I only made an assertion about God AFTER you made yours about subjective morality, so as far as I’m concerned it’s not fair to ask me of something that you refused to provide yourself.
You are aware that human beings have systems of rules, laws and expectations both explicit and implicit which are sometimes at odds with one another? And that these systems are referred to at least colloquially as moral systems? My argument is not that these have some inherent inarguable weight or that any one system is preferable over any given other but merely the rejection of your claim that any higher form of morality than this exists and also that some higher authority beyond human sensibilities and legislation would necessarily make that system objective rather than the subjective opinion of this hypothetical higher authority.
That’s a very vague standard considering there’s no consensus around a single definition of well-being, harm is also just as controversial considering not everyone agrees on what is and isn’t objectively harmful.
Yes I agree. I just cannot think of a better standard and in general it serves me well enough as a metric of what is "good". That put of the way appeals to a higher authority do not resolve this issue in any way owing to theists inability to agree on exactly what this higher power wants or even what it is (ie. which god(s) from a selection of thousands actually exists)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The Abortion Industry: A Study in PredationTitle of this article from Family Research Center.
The rarity of clickbaity articles on Google and your incredible ability to find them aside there is no abortion industry. There are no abortion factories or organizations that promote abortion. In fact I am unaware of a single argument from any pro choice advocate or organizations that promotes abortion. I am aware of arguments that promote the personal freedom and bodily autonomy of women. If you are aware of any example of this I await your correction with great anticipation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The abortion industry: all organisations focused on providing abortion service
I know of no organization which focuses on this though I can think of several organizations that focus on women's reproductive health and as a result offer abortion services.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You’ve yet to prove those systems to be “moral”.
Appeals to authority do not absolve you of this problem. On other words while I do not disagree that this is problematic I would invite you to prove that some god(s) moral pronouncements are "moral"... right after you prove that any god(s) actually exists (a tall order in and of itself to be sure).
They are only useful terms in this context based on some subjective standard.What subjective standard is that?
That depends. It is subjective. My preferred standard is the promotion of wellbeing and the minimization of harm. If we agree to that as our standard then we can make objective statements in a much as we can determine what does harm. In no case however could we use a standard that one of us rejected and still be having the same conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Causality: The idea that every event has a causeFree will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/free_will]Does causality undermnine free will?
By this definition gravity undermines free will as we are necessarily constrained in our actions by it. In other words I am not able to fly to the moon despite my willingness or even desire to do so. I might overcome this with enough thrust but that does not mean that there is no constraints to my will. Perhaps you should reform your argument with this in mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I challenge anyone to give me a moral system capable of support the abortion industry and human rights at the same time.
Part of the problem with this is your phrasing. After all there is no such thing as "the abortion industry" though there is a procedure known as abortion offered as a service by the health care industry.
If one believes in the idea of human rights at all I would presume that the health care industry is something one at least tacitly supports. At the very least if one does not it isn't the dispensing of health care and medical procedures that what one is actually objecting too.
I request your most scathing critique.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I understand and also assert that my clarification wasn't without merit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Morality is nothing more than a list of things one should or shouldn't do.The only way you prove that is through a God that says you should or shouldn’t do something.
I do not need to prove that subjective moral systems exist owing to a number of observable human moral systems that are just that. Namely at the very least all human moral systems that are not directly based on some proposed god(s). Indeed the burden falls to you to demonstrate that some god(s)exist in the first place or else you cannot even put forward any god(s) as a possible cause for or source of anything.
The actions one takes are not restricted by these laws in the same way one is constrained by say the laws of gravity.And that’s what separates the objectively good from the objectively bad.
Good and bad are definitionally subjective. They are only useful terms in this context based on some subjective standard. That being said if we can agree to some subjective standard we can objectively determine if some actions are good or bad for the purposes of maintaining or promoting that standard.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
P1. A command is only intelligible if received from a higher authority. (i.e. a Private in the military commanding a General is unintelligible)
I reject this premise immediately. A private giving a general an order (moral or otherwise) might not be obeyed but that doesn't mean he was not intelligible. Commands are intelligible or not purely based on the ability of one actor to communicate it to another. Take a dog owner whose pet demands to go for walkies. The command (takeme for walkies) and the consequences (or I'll mess on your most expensive shoes) is implicit if not explicit. The dog is not a higher authority but the owner would be best served by capitulating... if we assume the goal of maintaining a tidy home and the health of one's pets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Morality is nothing more than a list of things one should or shouldn't do. Laws if you will. That is all it is. The actions one takes are not restricted by these laws in the same way one is constrained by say the laws of gravity. The difference between the two is the difference between objective and subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Appeals to some god(s) doesn't actually lend any particular credibility to the idea of objective morals. The god(s) moral pronouncements can still be assumed to be nothing more than the god(s) subjective opinions about morality unless one could somehow demonstrate that these moral pronouncements were NOT CONTINGENT UPON the god(s) opinions. Assuming that morality isn't contingent upon any god(s) you must still demonstrate an objective moral standard INDEPENDENT of the demonstration of the god(s) you are positing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
If they are not dependent on human cognition, they are dependent on another cognition
Can you make some demonstration of this statement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
P1: human beings are social organisms.
P2: some level of altruism is necessary for the survival of social organisms.
C: human beings are objectively and biologically obligated to some level of altruism as a species.
This of course does not make any claims about the form, features, metric or prescribed levels of said altruism which are largely based on the subjective sensibilities of any given social group.
As detailed in this informative video environment plays a decisive role in this metric.
Created: