Environmental Ethics -- fair share for the non-human?

[Immanuel Can]

So let's say I am presenting that starting point "fairness" proposal from the Jewish principals of Bal Tashchit and Tikun Olam, etc.

Let's say that, then. You're Jewish. Your conception of "fairness" then comes from Judaism.

What, then, is your basis for defining "fair share" for "non-humans"? Torah portrays lower animals as...lower: not worthless at all, but lesser beasts to be tended and cared for by the higher, which is the human race. And in that arrangement, only the higher is morally conscious, and thus responsible to Hashem.

Why is Torah wrong about that?

Might I humbly suggest you not jump to conclusions about what Totrah saws to Jews.

I will...if I can figure out what "Totrah" is, and how it "saws."

I can tell you what Torah says, because I read Torah. I can tell you what it says, not merely what it "says to" some particular group who is trying to interpret it this way or that. I can tell you the truth.

For example, read Genisis 1 more carefully. Did you notice God declared creation good before humans were added?

And?

Did you notice what was given to humans for food

I also noticed what Jews were given for food in the post-lapsarian age. Have you ever heard of the sacrifices? One would think a Jewish person would have. Anybody familiar with Torah certainly would have.

And I am going to stop bothering to defend secular morality,

That would be wise. It cannot be defended anyway. That's the point.

...the principles of the Ethical Culture Society.

What's your basis for claiming the ECS is a moral authority?

They don't have to tell you where they got their starting points from.

Yeah, they do. That is, if they want to claim to be rational. But maybe they don't care about rationality.

[MikeNovack]

a)I can tell you what Torah says, because I read Torah. I can tell you what it says, not merely what it "says to" some particular group who is trying to interpret it this way or that. I can tell you the truth.

b) What's your basis for claiming the ECS is a moral authority?

They don't have to tell you where they got their starting points from.

c) Yeah, they do. That is, if they want to claim to be rational. But maybe they don't care about rationality.

a) I disagree. It would be very unusual for a Christian to be able to interpret Torah as Jews do. Look, I understand Christians take Torah and Tanakh (te rest of the Jewish Bible) as their books but they interpret differently.

b) I did no such thing. I gave them as an EXAMPLE of a secular group dealing with morality. You have more than a little trouble understanding what an example is. In other words, look at what they are using for basis/starting points and argue with THEM why they are being irrational in choosing those. See what THEY say.

c) Morality is a good example of where how our brains work and the (logical) equivalence of functions and procedures comes into p;lay. I would deny that we make moral decisions procedurally. Our brains, neural nets, have learned/been taught to evaluate a "morality function". From that we may be able to work backward to come up with "moral postulates" that would allow our moral conclusions to be reached y procedural/rational process. I would argue we do not MAKE moral decisions based on procedural reasoning, but can only try to demonstrate the procedure by which it could have been made in retrospect, to explain our choice of action. I say try, because we know example scenarios like the runaway trolley car where we cannot give a satisfactory procedural answer why our decision is different in two closely related scenarios which seem to be morally equivalent. But this is a more general matter of morality than belongs to dealing with a specific question.

If you want to discuss the equivalence of functions and procedures, start that discussion in the math section. But lamda calculus is a prerequisite.
If you want to discuss our our brains being neural nets and what neural nets do, probably likewise.

Not here.

[Immanuel Can]

a)I can tell you what Torah says, because I read Torah. I can tell you what it says, not merely what it "says to" some particular group who is trying to interpret it this way or that. I can tell you the truth.

b) What's your basis for claiming the ECS is a moral authority?

They don't have to tell you where they got their starting points from.

c) Yeah, they do. That is, if they want to claim to be rational. But maybe they don't care about rationality.

a) I disagree.

About secularists, to whom I was referring? I don't think you can. Either they can rationalize their own account of morality, or they cannot. And it's manifest that they cannot.

It would be very unusual for a Christian to be able to interpret Torah as Jews do. Look, I understand Christians take Torah and Tanakh (te rest of the Jewish Bible) as their books but they interpret differently.

There are differences in a few passages, and some of them are key. But there's no guarantee that just because somebody is Jewish, they get things right. Your own prophets tell you that much. It's not the having of some interpretation that makes it a good one, either for Jews or for Christians; it's bowing to God's 'interpretation' of what He intended that makes it right.

...a secular group dealing with morality.

Totally irrelevant. One can easily "deal with" something about which one has no real understanding and no justificatory basis. That's manifestly what they're doing.

You seem to think that if a secular person talks about morality, that that means he does so in a way that is consistent and justified by his worldview. But obviously, that's not the case. Secular persons often talk about morality, sure; but by the fact that they can't justify even one precept, they show they are completely devoid of understanding of WHY anything must be considered moral.

So they're just talking. It's not substantive or rational. It's intuitive, irrational, and unfounded according to their own worldview. They're just afraid to live the amorality that consistency with their own worldview would rationally require of them. Most of them are much more timid than Nietzsche, who told them that, over a century ago.

Our brains, neural nets, have learned/been taught to evaluate a "morality function".

Two questions: one, how has indifferent "Nature" produced such a thing? No secularist can explain that. Two, what makes this inexplicable "moral function" justified? Again, no secularist can say. So it makes of "morality" nothing more important than, say, the "vestigial tail" of evolutionary lore. It's something that accidental "nature" may have once programmed into us, let us guess; but that falls short of showing we have any duty to care about it anymore...rather like the vestigial tail, it might well be completely dispensible.

I would argue we do not MAKE moral decisions based on procedural reasoning, but can only try to demonstrate the procedure by which it could have been made in retrospect, to explain our choice of action.

That's only to say, "We try to justify our choices after we've already made them, rather than using morality to guide our decisions in the first place." And that's not morality; it's just excuse-making, after the fact, for behaviours that might or might not have been moral in the first place. It's revealed nothing about morality itself, because it doesn't tell us whether or not the decision in question was moral -- only about the human inclination to wish to create an excuse for (plausibly) very bad behaviour.

[MikeNovack]

A

Our brains, neural nets, have learned/been taught to evaluate a "morality function".

Two questions: one, how has indifferent "Nature" produced such a thing? No secularist can explain that. Two, what makes this inexplicable "moral function" justified? Again, no secularist can say. So it makes of "morality" nothing more important than, say, the "vestigial tail" of evolutionary lore. It's something that accidental "nature" may have once programmed into us, let us guess; but that falls short of showing we have any duty to care about it anymore...rather like the vestigial tail, it might well be completely dispensible.

B

I would argue we do not MAKE moral decisions based on procedural reasoning, but can only try to demonstrate the procedure by which it could have been made in retrospect, to explain our choice of action.

That's only to say, "We try to justify our choices after we've already made them, rather than using morality to guide our decisions in the first place." And that's not morality; it's just excuse-making, after the fact, for behaviours that might or might not have been moral in the first place. It's revealed nothing about morality itself, because it doesn't tell us whether or not the decision in question was moral -- only about the human inclination to wish to create an excuse for (plausibly) very bad behaviour.

As usual insisting on discussion which belongs elsewhere in the forum.

A) How has Nature RESULTED IN the evolution of brains which emulate a neural net? By evolution, which does NOT have a reason for whsat evolves or doesn't evolve (random. That is what a secularist would say, and also what I say as a believer in evolution. The second part is only slightly different. Nature also resulted inn the evolution of obligatory social animals (again no why to be answered) and a necessary part of that is a system of morality for that social animal (so sort of a why0

B) Misunderstanding. Not "excuse -making" but an attempt to explain, to ourselves or to somebody asking why. You can't ask why did a neural net result in the correct evaluation of a function it learned/was taught to evaluate. And note that being able to prove the existence of an equivalent procedural process does not (necessarily) help you discover what that process is. You seem to be assuming that lack of being able to do that means the functional evluation was incorrect. Might I suggest that you do not go through some rational procedural process when you decide it would be wrong for you to drop your pants, squat, and leave a turd in the corner of the room.

BUT TAKE THIS ELSEWHERE.

You asked for my basis for 50% and I told you I was using I'll translate those terms "do not destroy (what is good) and "repair the Earth". God declared the creation BEFORE man was added as being good. If you like, drop the "fair" and take the 50% as an estimation of what would be required to "not destroy" and "repair". In order would be your argument that less to none required or that more than 50% required to do that. Argument whether secularists rational not in order.

[Immanuel Can]

A

Our brains, neural nets, have learned/been taught to evaluate a "morality function".

Two questions: one, how has indifferent "Nature" produced such a thing? No secularist can explain that. Two, what makes this inexplicable "moral function" justified? Again, no secularist can say. So it makes of "morality" nothing more important than, say, the "vestigial tail" of evolutionary lore. It's something that accidental "nature" may have once programmed into us, let us guess; but that falls short of showing we have any duty to care about it anymore...rather like the vestigial tail, it might well be completely dispensible.

B

I would argue we do not MAKE moral decisions based on procedural reasoning, but can only try to demonstrate the procedure by which it could have been made in retrospect, to explain our choice of action.

That's only to say, "We try to justify our choices after we've already made them, rather than using morality to guide our decisions in the first place." And that's not morality; it's just excuse-making, after the fact, for behaviours that might or might not have been moral in the first place. It's revealed nothing about morality itself, because it doesn't tell us whether or not the decision in question was moral -- only about the human inclination to wish to create an excuse for (plausibly) very bad behaviour.

As usual insisting on discussion which belongs elsewhere in the forum.

Well, as near as I can see, this is a discussion about the warrant for environmental ethics. And what we see is that secularism has none, and Jews and Christians agree on the Torah's account, in which man is placed as above the rest of creation, as steward of what God has created, and accountable God.

I can see the relevance; I marvel that you cannot. You seem to want to assert that we all owe some "fairness" to the environment and "lower animals," but without the expedient of having to say WHY you think we owe any such thing. And I'm saying, you owe us an explanation for why you place a duty on us.

I think most people would agree that somebody who could explain WHY we should believe him is in a great position, philosophically and ethically speaking; but somebody who has no explanation of the why, or of how the duty is actually obligatory, would lose all justification in speaking to us.

You seem to want to assert a moral duty, an obligation to create "fairness": on what basis do you do so? We can decide whether or not we agree.

A) How has Nature RESULTED IN the evolution of brains which emulate a neural net? By evolution, which does NOT have a reason for whsat evolves or doesn't evolve (random. That is what a secularist would say, and also what I say as a believer in evolution.

The logical entailment of that is that we have no moral duties, just as Nietzsche pointed out.

Nature also resulted inn the evolution of obligatory social animals (again no why to be answered)

Yes...it's so convenient just to claim "no why to be answered." But there's always a why to be answered; and on that answer, the power of your moral instruction absolutely depends.

You can't ask why did a neural net result in the correct evaluation of a function it learned/was taught to evaluate.

We're not "neural nets." Computers are our creation, and we are none of theirs. So yes, we can ask a human being how to justify his function.

BUT TAKE THIS ELSEWHERE.

This is the right place. You may not want to justify your moral demands, but sorry...you have to, because that's what ethics requires.

If you can't stand the heat, why are you in the kitchen?

God declared the creation BEFORE man was added as being good.

I don't see what argument you're trying to make from this fact. I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for a proper explanation. If you have a point, I'm not seeing what it is. Sincerely.

Are you trying to suggest "good" means "complete"? I don't think you can; because there were further stages, and even after the creation of man creation itself was not quite complete: woman was yet to come. Are you trying to say that "good" means, "the object of moral obligation"? But to whom could Hashem be assigning such a thing, since man had not yet been created and wasn't around to receive it. So...what point are you trying to make?

Argument whether secularists rational not in order.

Argument whether secularists can even respond to your moral injunction, and be rational in doing so, very much in order. And if you expect anybody to discuss your moral demand that we give some sort of "fair share" to "non-humans," as above, we all need to know on what basis you're asserting that demand...but especially upon secularists, who have no such rational category derivable from secularism.

[MikeNovack]

Well, as near as I can see, this is a discussion about the warrant for environmental ethics. And what we see is that secularism has none, and Jews and Christians agree on the Torah's account, in which man is placed as above the rest of creation, as steward of what God has created, and accountable God.
<< and it's OK for a steward to destroy what thre master has left in his charge???m>>

You seem to want to assert a moral duty, an obligation to create "fairness": on what basis do you do so? We can decide whether or not we agree.

We're not "neural nets." Computers are our creation, and we are none of theirs. So yes, we can ask a human being how to justify his function.
<< A "neural net" is an ABSTRACT structure, a collection of nodes connected into a "network" (alsoan abstract notion) with signals sent down these channels to other nodes, these signals with strength modifiers (values) and a threshold value determining if the sum of the incoming signals will result in that node (sending signals down its outgoing channels.
OUR BRAINS WITH THEIR NEURONS CONNECTED BY AXONS MOST CERTAINLY ARE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A "NEURAL NET">>


BUT TAKE THIS ELSEWHERE.

This is the right place. You may not want to justify your moral demands, but sorry...you have to, because that's what ethics requires.
<< THE ABOVE (like your "we are not neural nets" and my explanation why our brains ARE implementing a neural net are what needs to go elsewhere. Also your nonsense about secular people being less rational.

God declared the creation BEFORE man was added as being good.

I don't see what argument you're trying to make from this fact. I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for a proper explanation. If you have a point, I'm not seeing what it is. Sincerely.
<< I told you Jews read scripture differently. If the environment (still) without humans is good (from scripture) combined with the principle not to destroy anything good are sufficient to not damage damage. Tikkun Olam by itself to repair damage already done. >>

Are you trying to suggest "good" means "complete"? I don't think you can.
<< no need for me to argue good means complete -- not using it >>

Argument whether secularists rational not in order.

Argument whether secularists can even respond to your moral injunction, and be rational in doing so, very much in order. And if you expect anybody to discuss your moral demand that we give some sort of "fair share" to "non-humans," as above, we all need to know on what basis you're asserting that demand...but especially upon secularists, who have no such rational category derivable from secularism.
<<< take THAT elsewhere. Take it up With the secularists. Be prepared forma possible response "" what sort of a rational explanation could be given to somebody clearly so urrational as to believe in a god?" >>
[/quote]

[Immanuel Can]

Well, as near as I can see, this is a discussion about the warrant for environmental ethics. And what we see is that secularism has none, and Jews and Christians agree on the Torah's account, in which man is placed as above the rest of creation, as steward of what God has created, and accountable God.

<< and it's OK for a steward to destroy what thre master has left in his charge???m>>

You will look in vain for that conclusion in Torah. "Stewardship" is not practiced through destruction.

I asked:

You seem to want to assert a moral duty, an obligation to create "fairness": on what basis do you do so?

You did not answer. Is that because you, like the secularists, have no basis for your "moral" demands?

Are you going to do that? Are you going to behave like a philosophical ethicist, and explain your basis?

Also your nonsense about secular people being less rational.

You really have to stop trying to misrepresent what I say. I know why you're doing it: to avoid answering what I DID say, and to try to impute to me something you can more easily pretend was unfair. But it's not honest. And it betrays your fear.

I did not say secularists could not be rational in other areas; I said they were incapable of giving a rational account of their ethics. Rather like you appear to be, actually, since you have not offered any basis to rationalize your own moral demands on us. And that's verifiably the case: they cannot give any rational account of moral demands.

I told you Jews read scripture differently.

Not really. If they read that men are not the pinnacle of God's creation and the stewards of His world, then they're not really "reading" the text at all, but making something up. But I know enough about Judaism to know you're actually wrong about that: on that particular point, Christianity and Judaism actually agree.

If the environment (still) without humans is good (from scripture) combined with the principle not to destroy anything good are sufficient to not damage damage. Tikkun Olam by itself to repair damage already done. >>

Well, Torah does hold that when God created it, it was good; but it also definitely asserts that, in its present, fallen state, it is not all good, and that its present condition is, in some ways, actually evil and reflective of the destructive nature of sin. You'll recall that with the Fall, death and decay enter this "good" world; and interestingly, it's at that point that Law also becomes expedient. Prior to that time, there was but one law: do not partake of the knowledge of good and evil. It's only after mankind has polluted itself with experiencing both good and evil that the Law is eventually given.

So there's no command or mandate that suggest we "owe a fair share" to "non-humans" at all. At most, we could say, "Don't behave destructively." But that's a commandment only binding on Jews and Christians, and not on secularists -- and most of the people here will describe themselves as secularists, I think.

Argument whether secularists rational not in order.

Argument whether secularists can even respond to your moral injunction, and be rational in doing so, very much in order. And if you expect anybody to discuss your moral demand that we give some sort of "fair share" to "non-humans," as above, we all need to know on what basis you're asserting that demand...but especially upon secularists, who have no such rational category derivable from secularism.

<<< take THAT elsewhere. Take it up With the secularists.

No, it's still your problem, the one you've raised for yourself by demanding belief in moral duties to the environment. For unless you can rationalize your moral demands to somebody else but a Jewish person who happens to agree with your particular view of Torah, which will not even be most Jews, you've got no case except to a very small subset of people.

Was that your intention?

[Impenitent]

SkyNet will determine its "fair share" soon enough

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

a)You will look in vain for that conclusion in Torah. "Stewardship" is not practiced through destruction.

b) Well, Torah does hold that when God created it, it was good; but it also definitely asserts that, in its present, fallen state, it is not all good, and that its present condition is, in some ways, actually evil and reflective of the destructive nature of sin. You'll recall that with the Fall, death and decay enter this "good" world; and interestingly, it's at that point that Law also becomes expedient. Prior to that time, there was but one law: do not partake of the knowledge of good and evil. It's only after mankind has polluted itself with experiencing both good and evil that the Law is eventually given.

c) So there's no command or mandate that suggest we "owe a fair share" to "non-humans" at all. At most, we could say, "Don't behave destructively." But that's a commandment only binding on Jews and Christians, and not on secularists -- and most of the people here will describe themselves as secularists, I think.

a --- implied by the meaning of "stewardship"

b --- Well you KNOW we would not be in agreement about the "Fall" (Jews vs Christians --- the origin of "moral knowledge" vs the origin of "sin", except of course Jews would hold that without moral knowledge sin does not exist)

But we will proceed with your interpretation, with the Fall creation, creation with humans PLUS creation without humans ais no longer "very good". Is in fact evil/sinful. That's equivalent to saying A + B is not good. WHY do you think that implies B, which was divinely declared good, has lost its status of good? Seems to me you are arguing A is the problem.

You are opening yourself to the argument of the "voluntary extinction" folks, that the solution is to s=return to the status quo ante (humans). That the proper allocation of the ecosphere is 0% for humans and 100% for all non-human Nature.

c --- You more or less asked me to provide a religious basis, and I selected one. Unlike you I don't think appealing to just Jews and Christians, as people who believe in religions often recognize conclusions of other religions (if not the basis -- who said bases necessarily unique). BUT unlike you I would never try arguing with a secularist using any religious basis. In my opinion the secularist would be justified in considering that irrational. And I would NEVER try to talk to a secularist and you at the same time. Asking me to produce an argument acceptable to both you and a secularist is asking the impossible.

[Immanuel Can]

a)You will look in vain for that conclusion in Torah. "Stewardship" is not practiced through destruction.

b) Well, Torah does hold that when God created it, it was good; but it also definitely asserts that, in its present, fallen state, it is not all good, and that its present condition is, in some ways, actually evil and reflective of the destructive nature of sin. You'll recall that with the Fall, death and decay enter this "good" world; and interestingly, it's at that point that Law also becomes expedient. Prior to that time, there was but one law: do not partake of the knowledge of good and evil. It's only after mankind has polluted itself with experiencing both good and evil that the Law is eventually given.

c) So there's no command or mandate that suggest we "owe a fair share" to "non-humans" at all. At most, we could say, "Don't behave destructively." But that's a commandment only binding on Jews and Christians, and not on secularists -- and most of the people here will describe themselves as secularists, I think.

a --- implied by the meaning of "stewardship"

You'd better look that word up. You seem totally unfamiliar with the concept.

One does not have "stewardship" over what one has destroyed. One "stewards" things that are to be retained and even multiplied. If they're gone, nobody can "steward" them. That should be obvious: I can't believe I'm even having to explain it.

b --- Well you KNOW we would not be in agreement about the "Fall" (Jews vs Christians --- the origin of "moral knowledge" vs the origin of "sin", except of course Jews would hold that without moral knowledge sin does not exist)

Not quite true. It's clearly not the case that if a person doesn't know murder is wrong, there would be no murders. But there would be no Law that would impart to him the moral knowledge of why what he was doing was so bad.

But we will proceed with your interpretation, with the Fall creation, creation with humans PLUS creation without humans ais no longer "very good".

No, let's stick with Torah. That's what Torah says, in fact. Neither my opinion nor yours will change that, obviously.

WHY do you think that implies B, which was divinely declared good, has lost its status of good?

Because Torah says so. Is it not quite plain to you, given the Genesis narrative? I can't imagine why.

Seems to me you are arguing A is the problem.

That doesn't make sense. Why would the existence of, say, a poisoned fruit make all fruit "the problem"? The problem's in the poison, and in the fact of the poison's presence among the good fruit. That seems a much more logical conclusion.

You are opening yourself to the argument of the "voluntary extinction" folks,

I cannot imagine how you're thinking that.

c --- You more or less asked me to provide a religious basis, and I selected one. Unlike you I don't think appealing to just Jews and Christians, as people who believe in religions often recognize conclusions of other religions (if not the basis -- who said bases necessarily unique).

Which "other religions"? Islam? Baal worship? Satanism? Or do you recognize the difference between truth and falsehood, in relation to religions?

BUT unlike you I would never try arguing with a secularist using any religious basis.

Again, you have to stop misrepresenting me. I did not say any such thing. Not one thing I asserted used any religious premise. Secularism cannot warrant any moral perspectives. That's demonstrably true, whether or not any other religion can, and whether or not any religion at all is true. Secularism's fault is it's own first premise.

Let's look at it in syllogistic form:

P1 -- The world came into being without divine action, by accident. (Secularism)
P2 -- Accidents do not have moral status: they're accidents. (by definition: and as by the assumption of evolutionism or Materialism of another kind.)
C -- Therefore, the world does not have moral status.

Now, which of the above premises is religious? P1 is Secularism's own fundamental belief. It can't be excluded. The second, is so obvious as to be nearly circular, depending on nothing other than the concept "accident," as opposed to "divine action." And the conclusion, if the first premises are true, becomes utterly inescapable, logically. It cannot possibly be wrong, then.

Where's the religious content? It's not there. In fact, the whole syllogism is a complete denial of religous content, not dependent on any at all.

So it's the secularist who tries to moralize who is being irrational. He's self-contradicting.

As for me, my beliefs are not even in view there. Secular moralizing collapses by its own Secular standards, not mine.

Asking me to produce an argument acceptable to both you and a secularist is asking the impossible.

I didn't. I just pointed out to you that your whole audience here is largely Secular. And if you want to talk to renegade Jewish folks of your own stripe, you've maybe got a case you can make. But if you're talking to Secularists, or to me, you have to provide the premises that make sense of your claim that we have moral responsibility to "non-humans" and "the environment." I haven't seen you do that yet.

[MikeNovack]

You'd better look that word up. You seem totally unfamiliar with the concept.

One does not have "stewardship" over what one has destroyed. One "stewards" things that are to be retained and even multiplied. If they're gone, nobody can "steward" them. That should be obvious: I can't believe I'm even having to explain it.
<<the English word literally "pig ward" -- he who takes care of the pigs. And he who fails in his duty of care is no longer stweard >

It's clearly not the case that if a person doesn't know murder is wrong, there would be no murders. But there would be no Law that would impart to him the moral knowledge of why what he was doing was so bad.
<< it would be killing, not murder. And we of course are not in agreement that knowledge of morality comes from the Law. Remember what God asks Adam and Eve -- "who told you that you were naked?" (and something wrong with being naked)

But we will proceed with your interpretation, with the Fall creation, creation with humans PLUS creation without humans ais no longer "very good".

No, let's stick with Torah. That's what Torah says, in fact. Neither my opinion nor yours will change that, obviously.

WHY do you think that implies B, which was divinely declared good, has lost its status of good?

Because Torah says so. Is it not quite plain to you, given the Genesis narrative? I can't imagine why.

Seems to me you are arguing A is the problem.

That doesn't make sense. Why would the existence of, say, a poisoned fruit make all fruit "the problem"? The problem's in the poison, and in the fact of the poison's presence among the good fruit. That seems a much more logical conclusion.
<<< If A and B is not good and B is good` then A is not good >>


Which "other religions"? Islam? Baal worship? Satanism? Or do you recognize the difference between truth and falsehood, in relation to religions?
<< NO --- Is that a shocker to you? I see no reason to consider your Christianity more true than the religion of the Baal worshipers, etc. >>

Let's look at it in syllogistic form:

P1 -- The world came into being without divine action, by accident. (Secularism)
P2 -- Accidents do not have moral status: they're accidents. (by definition: and as by the assumption of evolutionism or Materialism of another kind.)
C -- Therefore, the world does not have moral status.
<< We have a problem here about what MORAL means. Morality refers to the rightness or wrongness of a choice of action in some situation. An ACTION can be morally right or wrong, a THING cannot. >>


I just pointed out to you that your whole audience here is largely Secular.
<< really? I'm not seeing a bunch of secularists responding. >>

[Immanuel Can]

And we of course are not in agreement that knowledge of morality comes from the Law. Remember what God asks Adam and Eve -- "who told you that you were naked?" (and something wrong with being naked).

They had a law: "you shall not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." They knew they had violated the law they had. And thus, they discovered their shame before Hashem.

That's kind of basic.

<<< If A and B is not good and B is good` then A is not good >>

Well, "A" and "B" aren't actually apparent, but let's try to sort that out.
In this paraphrase, "B" must be "creation," and "A" must be sin. In which case, you'd be right. But we also wouldn't be disagreeing on that.

Which "other religions"? Islam? Baal worship? Satanism? Or do you recognize the difference between truth and falsehood, in relation to religions?

<< NO --- Is that a shocker to you?

For a Jew? Definitely. Torah is pretty clear on the worship of false gods. I do believe the first and second commandments pretty much cover that; but it seems you don't read Torah much, so...

Let's look at it in syllogistic form:

P1 -- The world came into being without divine action, by accident. (Secularism)
P2 -- Accidents do not have moral status: they're accidents. (by definition: and as by the assumption of evolutionism or Materialism of another kind.)
C -- Therefore, the world does not have moral status.

<< We have a problem here about what MORAL means. Morality refers to the rightness or wrongness of a choice of action in some situation. An ACTION can be morally right or wrong, a THING cannot. >>

We don't have any problem. "Moral" is neither an action nor a thing: it's an attribution, an adjective, not a noun. One can have moral actions or immoral ones. One can have moral persons, or immoral ones. And as for things, their uses can be moral or immoral. But in all cases, "moral" is an attribution.

I just pointed out to you that your whole audience here is largely Secular.

<< really? I'm not seeing a bunch of secularists responding. >>

Then you haven't been here very long. They're all over this site. But they can't think of how secular morality can be rationalized, either...so no wonder they stay quiet.

[MikeNovack]

We don't have any problem. "Moral" is neither an action nor a thing: it's an attribution, an adjective, not a noun. One can have moral actions or immoral ones. One can have moral persons, or immoral ones. And as for things, their uses can be moral or immoral. But in all cases, "moral" is an attribution.
?

Yes, an adjective, but applicable only to actions. The adjectives good/bad can also be applied to actions, but in that case meaning in the :fit for purpose" dimension. We normally use the adjectives good/bad for things.

I disagree with you that morality applies to things (in and of themselves) but only how they are used. Even then I would be careful My position here is CULTURAL There ARE cultures in which a "thing" is blamed for a "bad thing" it has done. I suspect you are doing something different, considering that a thing USUALLY used for an immoral action becomes in and of itself immoral. Are you saying that thing could NEVER be used for a morally right purpose? IMPOSSIBLE that it could ever be used for a morally right or morally neutral purpose? There might be SOME such things, but off hand not easy to think of examples. A gun can also be used as a paperweight.

Understand? I might say of a thing it was bad if USUALLY used for wrong purposes. If right/neutral purposes were very rare.

[Immanuel Can]

We don't have any problem. "Moral" is neither an action nor a thing: it's an attribution, an adjective, not a noun. One can have moral actions or immoral ones. One can have moral persons, or immoral ones. And as for things, their uses can be moral or immoral. But in all cases, "moral" is an attribution.

I disagree with you that morality applies to things (in and of themselves)

You'll have to remind me who said that. It certainly wasn't me.

There might be SOME such things, but off hand not easy to think of examples. A gun can also be used as a paperweight.

Yes: but is that how guns invite you to use them? And the same might plausibly be said of all technologies -- that they tend toward their most efficient use, regardless of whether the purpose is moral or immoral.

The old media critic, Neil Postman, famously wrote, "To a boy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." To a boy with a slingshot, everything looks like a target. To a boy with a computer, everything looks like data. Some things "suggest" their own most efficient use; and whatever use you put them to, they're going to end up getting used for whatever they're efficient for, as well.

So use your gun as a paperweight, if you wish. But take it off the table when you're dealing with a hostile person or a child. Because whatever you think that thing is for, they're going to have a different view. And theirs may be more efficient than yours.

[phyllo]

I just pointed out to you that your whole audience here is largely Secular.

<< really? I'm not seeing a bunch of secularists responding. >>

There are maybe 20 active posters on this site.

Those who are interested in "secular morality" have already discussed it with IC.

Therefore, one is unlikely to see a lot of "secularists responding".