Equality

[henry quirk]

"a category mistake"

Possibly...more likely: I skim more than I read, I'm naturally dumb, and when I read things like "category mistake" my eyes glaze over...

#

"we are assuming Atheism, not Theism as our subject matter"

No sir...I agreed to no such thing....both notions are on the table for me.

#

Question: Who can better *ground his system of 'shoulds' and 'should nots', the atheist or the theist?

If one or the other, why?









*broadly, I mean 'justify' or provide sufficiently weighty reasons for 'this' or 'that' behavior or against 'this or 'that behavior.

[thedoc]

In a game of chess they would have gone home by now.

Ah! Fools Mate.

Does that mean the offspring will be idiots?

[uwot]

Actually, this isn't even close to what I said.

The Noble Henry is right. What did you say?

In a game of chess they would have gone home by now.

Ah! Fools Mate.

Does that mean the offspring will be idiots?

Well?

[Immanuel Can]

IC wrote: "we are assuming Atheism, not Theism as our subject matter"

Henry responded: No sir...I agreed to no such thing....both notions are on the table for me.

I think you're misunderstanding me again. What I mean is this:

1) The question of whether or not Atheism can ground a commitment to values such as equality is one question.

2) Whether Theism can ground a commitment to such values is a different one, because Theism is a different suppositional framework from Atheism. So the answer could be "yes" to one, and "no" to the other, or "no" to the one, and "yes" to the other.

#1 and #2 aren't interdependent questions. The first one concerns only Atheism, and the second only Theism.

3) The question of whether Theism or Atheism is a *true description* of reality is a third (and a fourth), different type of question. The first two questions have to do with consistency, the third has to do with truthfulness.

Now, by keeping these things distinct, we avoid making foolish jumps in logic. Buy we do ourselves no favours, and we cloud all the issues, when we don't realize there's a significant difference between these questions. Of course, all are related to the credibility of both systems, to be sure; and all are "on the table," to be sure. I wouldn't want it any other way. But unless we deal with the issues in some sort of rational order, respecting the kinds of content and answers that are relevant to each, we'll soon become confused in our communication and talk at cross purposes. And I'm wanting to create clarity, rather than confusion. I'm sure you are too.

So if we want to talk about Theism, then sure, let's talk about Theism. But so far, the subject has been Atheism: can Atheism ground the moral claims some of its adherents want to make, such as the claim of equality.

(As for other, alternate worldviews, we have not even touched them in our questioning so far, which is fine, but we may want to later. Everything's on the table.)

[SpheresOfBalance]

"one has to sense a 'difference,' before it can be 'quantified.'"

And, most of the time, difference is apparent. Two men, one lean and muscled and tanned; the other fat and soft and pale...the difference (the inequality) between the two is obvious.
Then assign a value to each one, and then your reasoning, your arbitrary scale of course.

Two women, one eloquently, intelligently, conversing; the other stumbling over every misused word...the difference (the inequality) between the two is obvious.
Same here.


#

"I thought we were here speaking as philosophers"

I'm no philosopher...never claimed to be.

Irrelevant anyway...since when is it 'philosophical' to view a potentially fictional 'universal' level as superior to a demonstrably real human level?
Once the human level included killing for a mate or food, then some aspired to rise above. And the universal level is not fictional at all, as we 'all' were born of the universal level, we 'all' share one origin.


#

"No, the value is arbitrary"

Again: I disagree. Again: you've offered nuthin' to change my mind.
And you can say that, but are you just being contrary for it's sake. The answers above, as to your specific values of the men and women in your examples, may prove otherwise.

[uwot]

1) The question of whether or not Atheism can ground a commitment to values such as equality is one question.

I understand grounding to mean having a reason to believe. In most people's epistemology, that would mean either there is empirical evidence for it, or the proposition is self evidently true or can be logically deduced from self evident truths. I am happy to concede that none of these can be applied to statements that claim to be ethical from an atheistic point of view.
If that is not what you mean by grounding, then I think Henry's suggestion that we restate our views would be appropriate.

And I'm wanting to create clarity, rather than confusion. I'm sure you are too.

I'm trying.

[Ginkgo]

[quote="Immanuel Can"]

What I do suggest, though, is that any Atheist who turns around and insists on a moral precept (one of which would be "equality,") has no grounds he can supply to explicate the obligatory nature of equality rights. After all, he believes that the universe is Material or Naturalistic, and thus that there are is no reality to "spooky" properties like values. They are just things some people happen to have -- epiphenomena of physical processes -- which, like a vestigial tail, would simply be a rather bizarre byproduct of evolution -- perhaps destined to persist or perhaps destined to be eliminated by progressive development; but in any case, values would be simply incidental and in no way obligatory for anyone.

If they don' think this is true, there's a really simple way for them to prove me wrong: just logically connect some statement about the physical world to a conclusion demanding a particular value (perhaps "equality," but whatever). Then they'd show me to be wrong -- assuming they get their logic formally correct, which is a purely mechanical matter and should not give them trouble if they know logic.

So far no one has done that. But I can wait.
[quote]

I have no desire to prove you wrong,but I think you have already given us an example in Locke. Natural rights have high value and are derived from an historical account.

[quote="Immanuel Can"]

Kantian ethics is not what you seem to think it is. You need to read Allan Wood. Serioiusly, he's really good on this, and he'll convince you that Kant was a teleologist, not a pure rationalist. So Kant is not a special case, but sits in the same group of theories as Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, and Pragmatism, in the sense that unless you have reason to believe Kant's ontological assumptions you do not have reason to accept his theory.

Are you a Kantian?
[quote]

Perhaps Kantian ethics is not what I think it is. On the other hand, it might be what I think it is. Probably better to wait and see about the truth of falsity of this claim.

With in the context of this discussion I don't really see if it matters if Kantian ethics is deontological or teleological. In exactly the same way as it makes no difference if Christian ethics is deontological or teleological; even both. I am not a Kantian but I use Kant from time to time. Mostly I use him as a deontologist . I guess this is similar to you using teleological arguments from time to time.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres:

Your last exchange went like this:

IC: Sorry, Spheres... Henry's got you here.
Who are you, that you feel qualified to say so?
Ummm...silly question. It doesn't matter *who* a person is; it matters whether or not what he says is true. In this case, I'm speaking of logic.
Your logic is simply false, while mine is correct!

IC: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!
That's a precept for criminal trials, Spheres...it's not any principle of ethics. Besides, there's no "guilt" or "innocence" implied here, only a question of who has the burden of proving his case. Henry has lots of empirical data to show that people are, in fact, not obviously "equal" in any sense. You need to supply a contrary basis to show that he's wrong.
I know it's origins, but it applies here. You seem to be capable of parroting others text, but incapable of understanding it's significance. That's where we differ. Guilt and innocence is implied as to ones capability in being productive to help steer the human ship along it's course. Elitists do not necessarily know the truth of things such that the course they set is based in truth, rather most often just their selfish needs, of power and control.

You will find that almost all advocates of equality -- like, say, social justice advocates -- quite readily admit that there are many senses in which people today are not "equal."
And your way of thinking is the reason why!

The difference between them and Henry is that they think this is a deplorable fact, and Henry thinks it's not. They want to change the inequities into equalities, and he doesn't want to be bothered with all that. So the problem for them is how to show Henry that even though people *are* unequal in many measurable respects, they *ought not* to be treated unequally. They want to convince Henry that the inequalities are unjust and superficial, and that the "right" way to view all people is as equal. In short, they are trying to advocate for some value sense that transcends all the evident inequalities (of birth, gifting, intellect, culture, age...etc.), and shows that we *owe* people to treat them as equal.
But they, you and Henry have made one serious mistake, and that is that there are no inequities amongst people, just varying "power through money" that creates the illusion of such nonsense. Remove the falsehoods and you, remove the illusory inequities.

All Henry's done is to ask them to spell out how they can rationally get this "value", and so far no one has done so.
I just did! Though it's actually quite irrational, or rather, a rationalization.

IC: 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!
No it's not: see above. I am also personally an advocate of equality, so your objection makes no sense at all here. It's just not true. However, I do give Henry his respect for being consistent.
OK, that's great, we are on the same side, however you cannot see the truth as you're wrapped up in it. You seek to maintain for yourself, that which you profess to abolish, but you can't have it both ways, as the solution shall never present.

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.
What I said is that Henry's case is "very readily observable," which makes yours "contrary to obvious facts." There's no contradiction there. Your objection is perplexingly wrong here.
No, that is not what you said! Could it be that you are actually lost in this complex ideology that you tout? No crime there, it's easy for 'mere' humans to do.

It's you who bear the burden of proof.
Who are you again, that you feel qualified to say so?

Ummm...a logical arguer? I'll say again what I always say: it does not matter *who* I am, or for that matter, *who* you turn out to be, logically speaking. All that matters is, is it true?
And that was in fact my point! Thank you for finally getting it. Your truth is a falsehood of complexity that is used as your smokescreen, or so your words surely indicate!

IC: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?
Again, this is just dead wrong, for the reasons above. No one is saying anything about guilt, and this isn't a law court.
You're missing the point. Sorry but I assumed you could understand, in light of your apparent knowledge, maybe you're to close to the words to see how they all come together.

Burden of proof is always assigned purely on logical grounds. In a contest involving empirical claims (such as Henry makes) versus value claims (such as you are making about equality) it is always the person who lacks the "at first appearance" evidence that has to make the first rational move.
But he has not proclaimed any empirical evidence that is not illusory, a product of his self serving perspective alone. The fact that you agree that he has, does not make it so! But this is the problem then, as we "team" up on any specific point, to see it as unquestionable, in the face of other differences, that we want to 'correct in the other, we become lost as to the bigger picture. The complexity overwhelms! And we make mistakes, especially if it appears to not suit our own survival.

If you don't, then logically, Henry's position prevails until future notice -- not because I say so, but because that's the way burden of proof works.
You assume far to much, due to your likeness on certain points of Henry's! Or so your concepts, through your words, portray.

[henry quirk]

1) The question of whether or not Atheism can ground a commitment to values such as equality is one question.

2) Whether Theism can ground a commitment to such values is a different one, because Theism is a different suppositional framework from Atheism. So the answer could be "yes" to one, and "no" to the other, or "no" to the one, and "yes" to the other.

Poop.

Two men (you, me) of differing viewpoints dicker...we dicker about if (with or without GOD) an individual can accurately say 'this' is 'right' (for all) and 'this' is 'wrong' (for all)...we dicker about the foundations for such proclamations (we dicker about if GOD is real).

The same 'logic' (dissection, examination, dismantling) is used throughout by both of us.

As I see it: "different suppositional framework" is a just a fancy dance step and I don't dance.

This: "#1 and #2 aren't interdependent questions. The first one concerns only Atheism, and the second only Theism." is a misstating of things...what 'this' -- again -- is: 'Two men (you, me) of differing viewpoints dicker(ing)'. All that matters -- to my mind -- is which viewpoint most closely aligns with 'truth' (what is real, factual).


So, again...

Who can better *ground his system of 'shoulds' and 'should nots', the atheist or the theist?

If one or the other, why?








*broadly, I mean 'justify' or provide sufficiently weighty reasons for 'this' or 'that' behavior or against 'this or 'that behavior.

To be clear: I don't think the theist (you) or the atheist (me) can justify his position...neither has 'sufficiently weighty reasons for 'this' or 'that' behavior or against 'this or 'that behavior' (beyond preference, bias, and choice, and application of self/force/power/might/violence).

[henry quirk]

"assign a value to each one, and then your reasoning, your arbitrary scale of course"

'Two men, one lean and muscled and tanned; the other fat and soft and pale'

Based on what is apparent, the lean man has a better of chance of simply living (longer, better) than the fat man.

My 'scale' is the most basic one, the most real one, available: survivability.

The same 'standard' can be applied to 'Two women, one eloquently, intelligently, conversing; the other stumbling over every misused word'.

Intelligence and adaptability (which the eloquent woman evidences) make for increased survivability.

Nuthin' arbitrary about it.

#

"we 'all' were born of the universal level, we 'all' share one origin."

Not me! I slithered from a woman's vagina (after nine months of floating in goo)...I'm wholly of 'this' (human, organic) level.

[thedoc]

In a game of chess they would have gone home by now.

Ah! Fools Mate.

Does that mean the offspring will be idiots?

Well?

Apparently so.

[marjoramblues]

Dear Fuckin' Christ

[aiddon]

Dear Fuckin' Christ

I was thinking something not too dissimilar.

[thedoc]

Dear Fuckin' Christ

I was thinking something not too dissimilar.

Your approval is duly noted, Thankyou.

[Immanuel Can]

I understand grounding to mean having a reason to believe. In most people's epistemology, that would mean either there is empirical evidence for it, or the proposition is self evidently true or can be logically deduced from self evident truths. I am happy to concede that none of these can be applied to statements that claim to be ethical from an atheistic point of view.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. We're on the same page, now.

Yet I would also add this small note: that even granting that Atheism's premises are true, there would be nothing in them to sponsor any belief in values at all. For what, after all, are the "values" of survival of the fittest? Naturalism can't even show that "survival" itself is an obligating moral value; only that it happens to be something all creatures seem to want and is practically useful for their continuation. However, in that worldview it is also "useful" for the weak to die; and shall we say that the death of the weak is therefore also is a "moral" value? Surely not, one would hope.

That we *owe* each other equality cannot be shown from such premises.