Christianity

[phyllo]

We don't have to "say" it. It is.

Don't be tiresome.

For the sake of the discussion I don't care if it's true or not.

Stop.

Is that moral? Is Russia's claim to Ukraine, then, a moral claim?

It deals with property that get people riled up. So it a moral claim.

Or are you asking if it's morally right or wrong?

Now you're trying to use "moral" in the second sense, that of a value judgment, not a custom.

I have always used moral in only one sense. You're the one who introduced the word 'custom'. For no particularly good purpose. It just muddies the water.

But in Russia's thinking, Ukrainians are already part of Russia. As such, Ukranians have no legitimate right to pretend to anything else. That's their customary way of seeing it.

We would need a separate precept in order for us to argue that Ukraine had a right to choose. That precept would read something like, "People have a right to choose their own government," or "People have a right to determine their own nationality." But Russia doesn't have that custom. So when they claim Ukraine, they're being "moral" (i.e. acting according to their custom).

The Russian way of seeing it.

I already said that it would be seen as morally correct by Russians.

[Harbal]

Evolutionism doesn't eliminate God, though.

Well, you can still posit a kind of Deistic "god," of course; but then you've got to wonder what the point is of having any reference to God at all.

I already wonder what the point of having any reference to God is.

But the chief problem is that it, rather incoherently, makes man merely an animal, and one that has no particular moral orientation or duty, and no Fall from which to be saved.

Even if you think that is a valid argument, which I don't, it isn't an argument for the existence of God, it is just an argument for believing in God whether he exists or not.

But man is merely an animal, and is only different to any other in quantity, not quality. He has vastly more reasoning ability than any other animal, but is made from exactly the same stuff, and on the same biological principles. He doesn't come programmed with any particular moral orientation or duty, as you rightly say. I don't really understand what the fall from which to be saved is about.

I really don't see what implications evolutionism has for morality.

Oh, that's easy.

In a universe created by accident, there is no such thing, objectively speaking. Whatever "moralities" people may proposed, whether Kantian, Millian, Habermasian, Rortian, Nietzschean, Randean, Humean...and so on, are all merely "feelings" people have, but are unrelated to reality. There is no moral truth "out there" to be discovered anymore. Morality becomes merely a human invention, or an odd intution purposelessly thrown up by accidental processes of nature. And as such, it's no longer at all binding...and can only be made binding by the use of power.

In other words, the alternative to morality grounded in God is morality purely based on power. And power...well, what's moral about bullying people into doing things they maybe don't want to do?

You are right, there is no such thing as morality, objectively speaking. Morality is entirely a matter of subjectivity, if it were objective, it wouldn't be morality, it would just be accepting predetermined rules. I wouldn't call morality a human invention, as we are born with the capacity for it, and are influenced by it to some degree whether we like it or not. I disagree that we have a sense of morality through accidental processes. Man is a social animal, so it makes sense that natural selection would favour any feature that enabled him to live among his kind without too much conflict.

I'm sure that even that arch villain Dawkins doesn't suggest that a benefit of dumping creationism and God would be our freedom to lower moral standards.

He's not that courageous. But he does come very close to it.

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” (quoted from River Out of Eden)

I completely agree with the green quote as being an accurate description of nature's attitude towards morality. I have, therefore, no choice but to concede that Dawkin, no doubt, must conduct himself in the manner of an unprincipled savage. And worse, it seems that I, too, must must change my ways and do likewise.

Nietsche was much more courageous. He just said that if God is dead, morality is, too.

I think the most courageous thing Nietzsche did was to go out in public with that ludicrous moustache of his. I've heard him called a genius, but he will always be a crackpot to me.

Did not Freud say he thought relgion was about wanting a father-figure? Then what is Atheism about, except wanting to klll that same father?

Why can't atheism be about not needing a father figure?

We're not doing very well on that, actually. How did the COVID crisis strike you?

I was able to ignore it to a large degree. But it did cause me a bit of inconvenience, I must admit. Queueing to get into the supermarket, before I worked out the best time to go, and wearing those awful face masks that made my glasses steam up.

Actually, there was a moral lesson to be learned from the Covid episode:

I have had a life long terror of injections, so when I was invited to have the Covid jab my blood ran cold. The thought of getting Covid never worried me, so I wasn't motivated to have the jab on that score. I couldn't shake the feeling that it was my moral responsibility to have it, though. I had three in all. Waiting to have the first one was a horrific experience, but by the time I had the third I was almost relaxed about it, which was a bit ironic, as that was the only one that actually hurt. Anyway, the point is, that by overcoming my fear in order to perform my moral duty, I was rewarded with the removal of most of the fear I have of needles.

[Harbal]

The Pygmies are irrelevant.

That's a bit unkind, IC.

[Immanuel Can]

Evolutionism doesn't eliminate God, though.

Well, you can still posit a kind of Deistic "god," of course; but then you've got to wonder what the point is of having any reference to God at all.

I already wonder what the point of having any reference to God is.

Yep, I know.

But being able to know what morality is, would be a big "point" -- not the only "point" or the most important "point," but certainly a "point."

But the chief problem is that it, rather incoherently, makes man merely an animal, and one that has no particular moral orientation or duty, and no Fall from which to be saved.

Even if you think that is a valid argument, which I don't, it isn't an argument for the existence of God, it is just an argument for believing in God whether he exists or not.

It's not intended to be an argument for God. It's not even intended to be an argument against Evolutionism, per se. But it's an automatic consequence of rationally-consistent belief in a universe without God.

But man is merely an animal,

I don't think anybody actually believes that. If they did, they'd believe also that mankind had no moral duties at all. So they couldn't even argue that man had any special duty to, say, "conserve the planet." After all, we don't ask foxes and rabbits to do such things.

We just consign them to Beatrix Potter.

I don't really understand what the fall from which to be saved is about.

It means that man is alienated from God, by his/her own doing. (That won't come as any surprise to you, if you don't even think about Him, or regard Him as an issue.) And it means that man's happiness and blessedness will only come about when he is restored to God. "Saved" means, then, being delivered from the self-absorption and destructive business of life without God, and being delivered to a joyful relationship with God.

I really don't see what implications evolutionism has for morality.

Oh, that's easy.

In a universe created by accident, there is no such thing, objectively speaking. Whatever "moralities" people may proposed, whether Kantian, Millian, Habermasian, Rortian, Nietzschean, Randean, Humean...and so on, are all merely "feelings" people have, but are unrelated to reality. There is no moral truth "out there" to be discovered anymore. Morality becomes merely a human invention, or an odd intution purposelessly thrown up by accidental processes of nature. And as such, it's no longer at all binding...and can only be made binding by the use of power.

In other words, the alternative to morality grounded in God is morality purely based on power. And power...well, what's moral about bullying people into doing things they maybe don't want to do?

You are right, there is no such thing as morality, objectively speaking.

Oh, I didn't say that. All I said is that it WOULD be true, IF Evolutionism were true. Of course, I think both are untrue.

Morality is entirely a matter of subjectivity, if it were objective, it wouldn't be morality, it would just be accepting predetermined rules.

No more than accepting the "rules" of good diet and exercise are unhealthy. But if it were subjective, then it's nothing: "moral" would just be a placeholder for "what IC likes," not a synonym for "actually good or right."

I disagree that we have a sense of morality through accidental processes.

I disagree with that, as well. I think it's no accident.

Man is a social animal, so it makes sense that natural selection would favour any feature that enabled him to live among his kind without too much conflict.

Except that is only sometimes. Sometimes, for example, reproduction favours the promiscuous, and survival favours the thief, and devil-take-the-hindmost is the way to get ahead...so long as you don't get caught.

But how do we prove that man has a duty even to survive? Species go extinct all the time, and we don't call them "immoral" for dying out. Evolutionism posits a very wasteful process, in which most of its attempts at "evolving" are abortive, and for every successful mutation there are billions of dead failures and false-starts. Yet that's not what we see.

I'm sure that even that arch villain Dawkins doesn't suggest that a benefit of dumping creationism and God would be our freedom to lower moral standards.

He's not that courageous. But he does come very close to it.

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” (quoted from River Out of Eden)

I completely agree with the green quote as being an accurate description of nature's attitude towards morality. I have, therefore, no choice but to concede that Dawkin, no doubt, must conduct himself in the manner of an unprincipled savage.

Why would you think that? Do you have any reason to imagine he's consistent? I don't.

And worse, it seems that I, too, must must change my ways and do likewise.

Well, you don't HAVE to. Remember? You have no duties. So you can behave in ways that others regard as "moral" when you want to, and then be as "immoral" as you find it useful to be when they're not watching. Or you can carry on behaving in conventionally "moral" ways, and enjoy fooling yourself that you're meeting a moral standard that has nothing behind it, and fulfilling duties you don't actually have...

That's the thing about the impersonal universe: it lets you do whichever you please. That's one of its great attractions.

I think the most courageous thing Nietzsche did was to go out in public with that ludicrous moustache of his.

Do you remember the cereal called, "Muffets"? His moustache always looked like half a muffet, to me.

Did not Freud say he thought relgion was about wanting a father-figure? Then what is Atheism about, except wanting to klll that same father?

Why can't atheism be about not needing a father figure?

For the same reason a child cannot be without a father. Because God exists, and man, despite his delusions of self-sufficiency, actually does need God, or he's dead.

Anyway, the point is, that by overcoming my fear in order to perform my moral duty, I was rewarded with the removal of most of the fear I have of needles.

Moral duty? But what moral duty can you possibly actually have? If there's no God, how can you "owe" anybody, whether your neighbours or the authorities, to get a shot, or do anything else?

I suppose they can force you, or guilt you into it, if you're inclined to that. But would you actually be a "bad" person if you simply refused? For that matter, would it be "bad" to cough into grandma's face, while COVID positive?

On an Evolutionary account, no. That would be perfectly optional. In fact, you might decrease the population of the weak, and thus progress the race by way of survival-of-the-fittest. Granny's old, you know.

[Immanuel Can]

The Pygmies are irrelevant.

That's a bit unkind, IC.

Was I a bit short with them?

[iambiguous]

Well, unless, of course, you count, say, the actual Nazis among us who do walk your talk

Now hold on a doggone minute. Now you are getting me all turned around. Is there another me here who has something different than what I have said about Judaism and Jews?

This is getting spooky . . .

Is my left hand writing what my right hand is unaware of?!?

Okay, fine. Again, back to this:

Just as with race, what I would like is for you to discuss your thoughts and feelings about Jews theoretically, academically, analytically etc., and then take those conclusions out into the world that we live in today.

Imagining others who think like you do in a position of power in any particular community. What might Jews expect from them? How would you yourself interact with them? What would you approve of, what would you disapprove of...in terms of reproduction and education and employment and social interactions.

And, of course, hearing your own reaction to the polices of Hitler and the Nazis. Were there things they got right? Were there things they got wrong?

Then this part: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... ws-a-race/

Your views on that.

And...

...without Googling anything, to me a Jew is someone who subscribes to the religious faith -- the moral narrative -- that revolves around the God of Abraham and Moses. Historically. But it can then get murky because while some are born into Jewish families others convert to the Jewish faith. So just about anyone can call him or herself a Jew. Now, to the extent that there are Jewish genes and Arab genes and genes for all the other ethnic communities...damned if I know. What does science say about that?

Me, I react to others more or less ignoring all that "racial" and "gender" and "ethnic" stuff. I'm far more interested in how intelligent they are, how tolerant they are, their sense of humor, their emotional depth, their social skills, how far off the beaten path they are, how fascinating their life is and how just plain engrossing they are.

Instead, I go back to the assumptions I make about dasein. And that was explored in the 2012 film The Other Son: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... y#p2476698

Watch it yourself and get back to us.

No other you. Just the you that you think you are "here and now" if you actually were to grow a pair and walk the talk.

If not, then, fine, we can go back to this:

Pick one:

Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!

[promethean75]

Shameless. And absolutely so.

[phyllo]

Different groups of people are going to adopt different moralities.

That's going to be true even if they have one holy book that they all use.

They're not all going to interpret the book in the same way.

God and holy book are not enough to produce an absolute morality.

God would have to be actively managing for it to be absolute.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Shameless. And absolutely so.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to go along with this.

[iambiguous]

Shameless. And absolutely so.

Yeah, I can go along with that...

Pick one:

Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
SHAMELESS. AND ABSOLUTELY SO!!!!!!



Note to AJ:

Pick one:

GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR. ABSOLUTELY.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So what is your "judge" in this case? How do you make your own "moral" judgments without one? Do you actually want us to believe that "moral" now means "whatever AJ thinks?"

I am not concerned right at this moment in defining, nor locating, a judge or the Judge.

You should be, because without it, your term "moral" is rendered circular and vacuous again.

But it's an interesting admission, coming from you..."moral" needs a judge, a legitimative basis of some kind. On that, we agree.

I'd go back to my example of the Pygmy ethics study. The clan was out hunting. One man cheated. If I remember correctly he got the game through an illegitimate means but I frankly forgot the specifics. But he was caught. And what ensued was a social crisis in which he has shunned by the group for his immoral action.

Who was the judge? And who was the Judge?

A man of the Pygmies who violates a moral code suffers a consequence -- to have blame brought down on him and to feel shame as a result. I do not frankly see a great deal of difference between this instance and an instance that we might refer to from our own culture.

Take for example a man of a Christian community caught stealing. The community finds out. Blame is assigned. He is shunned so that he feels shame and repents.

Circular? Vacuous? Not in the slightest.

[phyllo]

Shameless. And absolutely so.

Yeah, I can go along with that...

Pick one:

Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
SHAMELESS. AND ABSOLUTELY SO!!!!!!



Note to AJ:

Pick one:

GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR. ABSOLUTELY.

You sure know how to bring down a forum.

[iambiguous]

A man of the Pygmies who violates a moral code suffers a consequence -- to have blame brought down on him and to feel shame as a result.

Next up: the Pygmy moves to Northern Europe.

He settles into a community of those who think like Alexis Jacobi but who are absolutely adamant about walking the talk.

Let's ask AJ to comment on what the Pygmy might expect in this community. What behaviors would he be permitted? What behaviors would get him shunned?

Or worse.

For example, would he be permitted to marry a Northern European white woman in this community, have children and live happily ever after?

[iambiguous]

Shameless. And absolutely so.

Yeah, I can go along with that...

Pick one:

Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
Absolutely shameless!!!
SHAMELESS. AND ABSOLUTELY SO!!!!!!



Note to AJ:

Pick one:

GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR.
GROW A PAIR. ABSOLUTELY.

You sure know how to bring down a forum.

Indeed. Allow me to cite further examples of this:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34247
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34285
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34319
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35709
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=34306
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34271
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=34260


Not that I will ever come close to matching your own philosophical contributions here, Larry.



Oh, and I'm sure that black, brown, red and yellow folks here [along with the Jews] can appreciate how AJ reflects the true spirit of philosophical inquiry: way, way, way up in the clouds.

And, of course, making it all about me.

[Harbal]

But man is merely an animal,

I don't think anybody actually believes that.

I believe it. I admit that I put man apart from all other animals, but that is because I belong to the same species. Similarly to how I think of my own country as being special among all other countries, as, no doubt, you do. If I am being subjective, I honestly do think that man is just one of many species of animal that inhabits the Earth.

If they did, they'd believe also that mankind had no moral duties at all. So they couldn't even argue that man had any special duty to, say, "conserve the planet." After all, we don't ask foxes and rabbits to do such things.

I don't believe that mankind does have any moral duties in an objective sense, but most men feel they have moral duties, and that is sufficient to influence their actions. Human beings are able to empathise with one another, and we can make fair assumptions about how others feel about any given situation. Now foxes and rabbits may also have this sense to some extent, within their own species, but sense of that nature doesn't exist between humans and foxes, and the same goes for rabbits.

Morality is entirely a matter of subjectivity, if it were objective, it wouldn't be morality, it would just be accepting predetermined rules.

No more than accepting the "rules" of good diet and exercise are unhealthy. But if it were subjective, then it's nothing: "moral" would just be a placeholder for "what IC likes," not a synonym for "actually good or right."

No, it would be a placeholder for what IC feels to be good or right. There must be times when you come up against a moral issue that falls outside of anything the Bible is able to guide you on. Have you never had to make a moral judgement of which the only available arbiter is yourself? Do you really not have any moral sensibilities of your own, that are apart from the ones God has asked you to cultivate?

Well, you don't HAVE to. Remember? You have no duties. So you can behave in ways that others regard as "moral" when you want to, and then be as "immoral" as you find it useful to be when they're not watching.

Yes, I could be dishonest about quite a few things when, for example, I am engaged in an argument with you, and you would have no way of knowing it, but I'm not. What on earth is preventing me, I wonder.

Or you can carry on behaving in conventionally "moral" ways, and enjoy fooling yourself that you're meeting a moral standard that has nothing behind it, and fulfilling duties you don't actually have...

I have moral values and standards that I try to behave in accordance with, and when I don't live up to them I feel disappointed in myself, which is something of an incentive to try to live up to them. You seem to think this is a false morality, but it is the only sort I've got. It seems that fooling myself is the best I can hope for.

That's the thing about the impersonal universe: it lets you do whichever you please. That's one of its great attractions.

The impersonal universe is a fact that I have no control over, but whether or not I choose to use it as an excuse is something within my control.

For the same reason a child cannot be without a father. Because God exists, and man, despite his delusions of self-sufficiency, actually does need God, or he's dead.

That conclusion isn't something you would expect an atheist to agree with, is it? The human race is not a child, and it doesn't have a father.

Moral duty? But what moral duty can you possibly actually have? If there's no God, how can you "owe" anybody, whether your neighbours or the authorities, to get a shot, or do anything else?

Well, if there is a God, how am I supposed to know whether he wants me to get jabbed or not?

I suppose they can force you, or guilt you into it, if you're inclined to that. But would you actually be a "bad" person if you simply refused? For that matter, would it be "bad" to cough into grandma's face, while COVID positive?

Are you seriously saying that the only reason to have concern for another's well being is if God wishes it?