Equality

[Ginkgo]

Well I have an issue with premise #1, I do not see all, or even most humans as being rational, and I would include logical in that assessment. It has been my experience that most people do not see what is in front of them, and even on forums like this, it can be seen that people do not read what is written, but read what they expect or what they want to read. How are people going to be rational about the world as it is, if they don't see the world as it is? You have people making fantasy assessments about a fantasy world. Sorry if I sound pessimistic but I have directly experienced people who, only a short time after the event, have related a totally fictional account of the events in question. My confidence in human perception is very low, and I see perception of reality as the key to a rational interpretation of reality.

It is not contrary to reason to wish the destruction of the whole world upon the hitting of my thumb with a hammer. My apologies to Hume.

What you are saying is true,so I think there is a need to isolate a certain type of human rationality for the purposes of ethics. In other words, there is a certain type of morality that obligates us in respect to formulating ethical principles that are not inferred from experience.

[henry quirk]

"My claim is that I am *not* the ground of ethics (or equality, if you like). In that case, my preferences are irrelevant."

Not so...by your own admission (up-thread) you made a choice to adopt Christianity (as religion, as philosophy, as ethical ground). I believe this makes your preference not only relevant, but the very core of everything that extends out from you.

And since you (continue to) make the choice (moment to moment) to 'be' Christian, your preference remains at the core of your living.

In short: you choose Jesus (over and over)...you could reject him...instead you choose him.

[henry quirk]

"I believe you have extended my statement much farther than I had intended."

Probably.

My intent was simply to illustrate that (philosophical/moral/ethical) certainties usually are nuthin' but clusters of rationalizations, guesses, biases, and preferences, each backed by nuthin' more solid than sparrow farts and ghost whispers.

[henry quirk]

"Inequality is born of the sickly minds that are only capable of seeing things their way."

HA!

Nope.

Inequality (more accurately: 'difference') is obvious and real...my opinion on the object(ive) alters the object(ive) not one bit.

Again: pretending that 'all men are created equal' is fine...such a fiction greases the wheels for 'peace', but, one should never mistake the fiction for reality.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"Inequality is born of the sickly minds that are only capable of seeing things their way."

HA!

Nope.

Inequality (more accurately: 'difference') is obvious and real...my opinion on the object(ive) alters the object(ive) not one bit.

Again: pretending that 'all men are created equal' is fine...such a fiction greases the wheels for 'peace', but, one should never mistake the fiction for reality.

Wrong, name one human attribute that makes one superior/inferior to another. My point is that there is no universal perspective, that's all inclusive of only positive or negative. That it's an illusion, of the ignorant selfish mind. There are pros and cons to everything my friend, despite ones knowledge of them.

[henry quirk]

"name one human attribute that makes one superior/inferior to another"

The man who can outrun the mugger is superior, in-context, to the mugger.

#

"there is no universal perspective"

Yeah, I've said the same, multiple times, in this thread.

All that really means, however, is that 'context is everything', not that 'all men are created equal'

#

"my friend"

I'm not your friend, pal.

[Immanuel Can]

thedoc wrote:

Well I have an issue with premise #1,

In that case, we have to give up the claim that equality (or any other value, for that matter) can be grounded in "human rationality," as the proposal was.

I'm fine with that. I never thought it was a plausible idea.

Uwot wrote:

This is just drivel. If you wish to insist that non-christians are inconsistent for describing anything they do in ethical terms, that is only because you choose to define ethics as 'sanctioned by god'.

No, it's not drivel at all. I understand why you're going ad hominem again, though. You're perhaps just a little unnerved by the realization that naturalism cannot ground ethics. But don't worry; it's a rational concession that many Atheists are willing to make -- though they find themselves too decent as people to follow it through to its nasty conclusion.

That being so, any definition of 'ethics' that doesn't appeal to the authority of god, isn't in your terms ethics.

No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm talking totally about Naturalistic ethics. I don't need to take one step in the direction of any other ethics to be able to show in quite a straightforward way that Naturalism rationalizes no ethics of any kind at all. I'm not, so to speak, name-calling: I'm just showing what your worldview leads to.

Too bad you're afraid to go there. Henry's not.

You can only do that if you choose to define ethics as 'sanctioned by god'.

Again, this is simply untrue. I can show Atheism or Naturalism are irrational without reference to any outside system at all...they can't even keep faith with their own fundamental value claims, never mind anyone else's.

Until you 'prove' that your god exists, you have no 'grounding' for your claims.

This again misunderstands the difference between "grounding" and "truth." I don't even have to claim that Theism is true, or that its ethics are the correct one in order to show that Atheism's are not -- precisely for the reasons above.
In fact, I could make wildly implausible truth claims, such as "Santa exists," and on the basis of the existence of Santa, I could specify a consistent ethic with that suppositon. It would be grounded, just wildly untrue. But Atheism cannot even get past the minimal bar of its own claims, and cannot ground anything in the value realm.

Show that it can, if you think it can. And once I see you realize that I'm not even having to prove Theism to make the point, I will be more than happy to move on to whatever you wish.

[Immanuel Can]

Kantian ethics is a priori so rationality in terms of morality teaches us that morality can have an objective necessity about it.

Read Wood on Kant, and you'll see why Kantianism is no answer at all. It's actually teleological, or substantive.

Joel Marks, the PN columnist, has recently come to this realization, so you could also read his article on that, but it's much less exhaustive than Wood is.

A nice idea, though.

[Immanuel Can]

Henry wrote:

Not so...by your own admission (up-thread) you made a choice to adopt Christianity (as religion, as philosophy, as ethical ground). I believe this makes your preference not only relevant, but the very core of everything that extends out from you.

As a generalization, Henry, this would be true of me. But it's not true to say that that fact has any relevance to the present debate. I am also a Manchester United fan, and that is also irrelevant.

That Atheism cannot fill Atheism's moral claims is a problem entirely internal to Atheism.

That I happen to be a Christian is, in this case, simply ad hominem and not relevant. I could make precisely the same case if I were writing as an Atheist.

[Immanuel Can]

Wrong, name one human attribute that makes one superior/inferior to another. My point is that there is no universal perspective, that's all inclusive of only positive or negative. That it's an illusion, of the ignorant selfish mind. There are pros and cons to everything my friend, despite ones knowledge of them.

Sorry, Spheres... Henry's got you here. Rationally speaking, "equality" is not simply a default position that can hold unless someone disproves it to you -- things go the opposite way. The default position has to be inequality, because inequality is very readily observable (see earlier in this same strand...) and equality is a value attribution contrary to obvious facts like differences in height, weight, gender, age, intelligence, priviledge, culture...etc.

It's you who bear the burden of proof. You need to show that none of these obvious considerations are relevant to making a value difference among people.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"name one human attribute that makes one superior/inferior to another"

The man who can outrun the mugger is superior, in-context, to the mugger.
I see that the man that surprises the mugger, so he can never mug another, is superior. So, which is right and which is wrong.
#

"there is no universal perspective"

Yeah, I've said the same, multiple times, in this thread.

All that really means, however, is that 'context is everything', not that 'all men are created equal'
Not at all, it says that ignorance makes us 'all' inferior.


#

"my friend"

I'm not your friend, pal.
I'm not your pal, friend!

[henry quirk]

Mannie,

You say, "My claim is that I am *not* the ground of ethics (or equality, if you like). In that case, my preferences are irrelevant."

From that I draw that GOD is the ground of (your) ethics (in particular, GOD as portrayed or envisioned by the Christian Bible).

Central to this debate (on 'equality' and 'grounding') is the foundation for a position.

Your positions -- by your own admission -- are grounded in GOD, making that foundation not only relevant, but central to this thread.

To claim "I could make precisely the same case if I were writing as an Atheist." is disingenuous of you because, as atheist, you would not make the same arguments, take the same positions. As you say, "Atheists, in consistency have to think X, and theists, in consistency, have to think Y."

#

"That Atheism cannot fill Atheism's moral claims is a problem entirely internal to Atheism. "

I disagree. The theist is left with the same problem. He or she sidesteps that problem through the exercise of faith (there is GOD) but this sidestep is no solution or explanation (or true ground)...it's just an explaining away.

[henry quirk]

"which is right and which is wrong"

Eye of the beholder.

#

"ignorance makes us 'all' inferior"

Again: context is everything.

#

"I'm not your pal, friend!"

You were supposed to write, 'I'm not your pal, buddy.' Then I would respond, 'I'm not you buddy, friend'. And on and on...

*shrug*

[SpheresOfBalance]

Wrong, name one human attribute that makes one superior/inferior to another. My point is that there is no universal perspective, that's all inclusive of only positive or negative. That it's an illusion, of the ignorant selfish mind. There are pros and cons to everything my friend, despite ones knowledge of them.

Sorry, Spheres... Henry's got you here.
Who are you, that you feel qualified to say so?
Rationally speaking, "equality" is not simply a default position that can hold unless someone disproves it to you -- things go the opposite way.
Incorrect! Innocent until proven guilty!
The default position has to be inequality, because inequality is very readily observable (see earlier in this same strand...)
No, it's just that this view, more readily, satisfies your self interest, you!
and equality is a value attribution contrary to obvious facts like differences in height, weight, gender, age, intelligence, priviledge, culture...etc.
So make up your mind, it's either "very readily observable" or it's "contrary to obvious facts" you can't have it both ways, as they are directly contradictory.


It's you who bear the burden of proof.
Who are you again, that you feel qualified to say so? As you've shown no credible evidence.
You need to show that none of these obvious considerations are relevant to making a value difference among people.
No you need to show that they do! Innocent before proven guilty, remember?

[SpheresOfBalance]

"which is right and which is wrong"

Eye of the beholder.
Now you're starting to get it! No universal perspective!
#

"ignorance makes us 'all' inferior"

Again: context is everything.
Oh, so you agree that there is no such thing as inequality, then! Thank you!


#

"I'm not your pal, friend!"

You were supposed to write, 'I'm not your pal, buddy.' Then I would respond, 'I'm not you buddy, friend'. And on and on...
Well damn it Henry, you're supposed to apprise your "partner" of the rules, before you hold him accountable.

*shrug*

*sheesh*