For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You know?
Well done Ben. Don't feed the trolls. They are the Nietzschean abyss.Ben JS wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:48 pmSo I'll leave on the core criticism:Ben JS wrote:Another for the wrong tally.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:13 pm No, one cannot, actually. One can only say either "No gods exist," or "I don't know whether or not gods exist." If one doesn't know, one has no firm claim to make; if one does know, then how does one know?
One can say they are absent of a belief in gods.
This is neither claiming no gods exist, nor is it claiming it is unknowable whether gods exist.
One can do all three - or any combination of the three (including none).
It is very common for atheists to also claim that they believe no gods exist -
but this isn't a fundamental, defining criteria to meet the standards of atheism.
Thus, to critique those who declare no gods exist - is not to critique atheism,
it is to critique a (likely) subcategory of atheists.
I'm not interested in arguing the credibility of any particular god claim,
instead, I'm rebutting your gross misrepresentations & generalizations.
Not here to express any of my beliefs beyond that your claims are wrong.
To answer other questions is a diversion/distraction/red herring.
-
But it's starting to feel like beating a dead horse,
so even though I anticipate you will respond with another flawed argument,
I'm not planning to be dragged further into your bullshit.
===Ben JS wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 2:43 amAgnosticism: is the philosophical view that the existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural is ultimately unknowable, either in principle or in factImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 1:08 pm
No, that's agnosticism. "A-" plus "theos," literally translates to "no + Gods". That's its meaning. If you didn't know, you know now. And "a-" plus "gnosis" is "not + know."
Theism = belief in the existence of a god or gods
One can be both an atheist, and agnostic. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.
To be an atheist, is to be absent of belief in the existence of gods.
To be agnostic, is to believe it is unknowable whether gods exist.
One can be absent of a belief in god, and furthermore, believe that whether gods exist is unknowable.
So you're wrong twice.
I'm shocked!
Wrong again.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 1:08 pm If you "lack belief," you don't know anything about it.
One can be aware of a belief without holding said belief.
If they don't hold the belief, they lack a belief in it.
I know what the description of a unicorn is -
I know what the concept entails.
I do not believe instances of actual unicorns exist in reality -
there are many representations of unicorns (such as toys),
but these artificial representations are not equivalent to the concept described.
I am aware of what the belief in unicorns entails [knowledge].
I do not not hold the belief that unicorns exist. [absent of a belief]
This is very simple.
Your claims are tired.
I've little interest in engaging with you -
only as much as to reveal your poor arguments.
===
===
This is where the deceptive fool conflates absence of a particular belief with absence of any belief.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 6:19 pm
"Lack of belief" takes nobody anywhere. You can't know anything or do anything or live a life without believing things, because it's impossible in practice.
We must have empathy for the old bugger - dribbles so much that they can't remember what's left their mouth.
IC wrote:He believes many, many things, but claims to believe nothing at all.IC does a full circle.Ben JS wrote:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 6:19 pm"Lack of belief" takes nobody anywhere. You can't know anything or do anything or live a life without believing things, because it's impossible inI was pointing out your transparent strawman.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 4:58 am At first glance, I'd have to say that's a silly thing to say. But maybe you'll explain it, so it makes some sense.
Not for your benefit,
but for those who think you communicate in good faith.
Atheism is the attribute of being absent of a belief in deities.
Inanimate matter and most life forms are presumably atheistic.
A lack of a specific belief: that of deities.
One can lack a specific belief, without lacking all belief.
You conflated these two positions so you could provide your strawman argument.
Disappointing stuff.
Demonstrating closed mind.
I'm a fool the longer I walk alongside his spiraling madness.
Blocked.
You did it again! Now I have to look up 'Johannine school'.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:42 pmYep, knew that a lonnnng time before ChatGPT. Glad it agrees with me.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 5:25 pmI really needed to look up the following info about Logos:-Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 9:51 am
(i) I'm sure mine was. I don't impute bad faith to any indoctrinator. I was taught to know, thinking came after. I could never have escaped cultism until the cult deconstructed itself. I had no beliefs. Only certainties. Dogmata. That eroded, mainly by the principle of parsimony. But I had to be led in deconstruction. My reason was enslaved by my passion for certainty. Until error was exposed, against my will. For some here, on this very thread, from its OP, that never happens. How sad, How human. I got lucky. I should have more sympathy for the still benighted.
(ii) It wasn't logos. He said it. Of 'the Father'. All that happens necessarily also intrinsically happens by chance. But yes, embrace the other. All others no matter how repulsive. There is no hope until liberals can do that. 65. The last of my religious certainties fell away. In the lifelong process of epicyclically de/re/constructing dogma.
(iii) Me too!
1. Greek Concept of Logos
In Greek philosophy, especially in Heraclitus, Stoicism, and later Hellenistic thought, Logos had several meanings:
Heraclitus (6th century BCE): Logos referred to the rational principle governing the cosmos. It was the underlying order and reason in the universe.
Stoicism: The Stoics developed this further. For them, Logos was the divine rationality that permeates and structures all reality. It was impersonal but essential to the coherence of existence.
Philo of Alexandria (1st century BCE/CE): A Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who synthesized Jewish theology with Greek philosophy, Logos became a mediating divine being—the intermediary between God and the world.
2. Christian Logos (Gospel of John)
In John 1:1, the famous passage begins:
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God."
This is a direct borrowing of the term Logos but with significant reinterpretation:
The Logos is not an impersonal force but a person—Jesus Christ.
The Logos is eternal, divine, and incarnate ("The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" – John 1:14).
It bridges Greek philosophical ideas of rationality and order with Jewish concepts of God's creative and revelatory word (e.g., in Genesis 1, where God creates by speaking).
ChatGPT
The Johannine school logos isn't known for transcendent Love. A cosmic Father who notes the death of a sparrow is a beautiful hint of that.
That's how it works, doesn't it? A few bad eggs ruin it for everyone. You do right (or, don't do wrong), but the other guy does wrong and you end up gettin' jabbed in the keister for it with regulation and law, stuff that's supposed to keep him down but just leashes you.Like the vast majority.
I got you figured as more of a politburo-type so, no, no blood bathin' for you. Your tools are love and compassion and rehabilitation. Your revolution isMy eyes glitter at the thought of bathing in the blood of the ruling class.
in gun barrels. Hippy. 
As you like. Keep in mind, though: without natural rights, you got no warrant to object to being commodified. Even if natural rights are a fiction (they're not) only good can come from acknowledging and respecting 'em.I find the concept oxymoronic.
You don't need social justice: you need recognition and respect of natural rights. No politburo required.Well you will do if you won't have social justice.
You mock me, sir.Behind which is a mind like a steel trap.
Your eyes are fine, I'm sure. It's the rosy glasses: take 'em off.Um sorry, my eyes are too dim.
As I say: friendly enemies.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 10:41 pmWe have so much in common. Infinitely more than our mere polar opposite worldviews.
There's just one Creator, and, of course you don't.
You admire the side that cuts and runs? Well, it's your side, and you did the same, so...yeah, I understand that.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 7:23 am Well done Ben. Don't feed the trolls. They are the Nietzschean abyss.
But Henry, how can you know what rights are natural? I bet somewhere there is some really horrible murderer who thinks his rights are natural.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 2:07 pmThat's how it works, doesn't it? A few bad eggs ruin it for everyone. You do right (or, don't do wrong), but the other guy does wrong and you end up gettin' jabbed in the keister for it with regulation and law, stuff that's supposed to keep him down but just leashes you.Like the vast majority.
You might say all we need is love. Me, I say what we need are shotguns and let's break some eggs.
I got you figured as more of a politburo-type so, no, no blood bathin' for you. Your tools are love and compassion and rehabilitation. Your revolution isMy eyes glitter at the thought of bathing in the blood of the ruling class.in gun barrels. Hippy.
As you like. Keep in mind, though: without natural rights, you got no warrant to object to being commodified. Even if natural rights are a fiction (they're not) only good can come from acknowledging and respecting 'em.I find the concept oxymoronic.
You don't need social justice: you need recognition and respect of natural rights. No politburo required.Well you will do if you won't have social justice.
You mock me, sir.Behind which is a mind like a steel trap.
Your eyes are fine, I'm sure. It's the rosy glasses: take 'em off.Um sorry, my eyes are too dim.
As I say: friendly enemies.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 10:41 pmWe have so much in common. Infinitely more than our mere polar opposite worldviews.
There's just one Creator, and, of course you don't.
Same way you do: I know, in my bones, my life is mine. My right to my life, myself, my liberty, my property, is exclusively mine. This is the common, the universal, intuition every person has. You see the line, the fence, between us, yes? You have all the say over your life and none over mine, and vice versa. So: murder, rape, slavery, theft, fraud, and all the nasty permutations and iterations of those, are wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.But Henry, how can you know what rights are natural?
No doubt. Pretty damn sure, though, that guy, and all the others like him, would take a dim view about being murdered. As much as we good folks (HA!) these animals each know, without exception, I am my own...I am not a commodity for use, abuse, direction, destruction, and discard even as they use, abuse, direct, destroy, and discard other people.I bet somewhere there is some really horrible murderer who thinks his rights are natural.
I had prepared a detailed reply to this, but there seems little point in posting it, because it's clear that neither of us will ever convince the other.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:27 pmThat's a thoroughly unhelpful "definition." If fails to specify what those "reasons" would be, what the "anti-response" would entail, and what would justify calling "reasons" "sufficient." In other words, it says absolutely nothing specific.
Then it also makes unclear what the real connection between "unpleasant" and "bad" would be. Many things that are "unpleasant" are good...like cough medicine. And things which some people find "pleasant," like theft or adultery, could be "bad."I infer that unpleasantness has the property of being bad, which is not the same as saying that 'unpleasant' means the same as 'bad'.
So you've given nothing that informs us of anything.
Only if "unpleasant" and "bad" turn out to be the same, which even you now admit they are not...though even your claim that "unpleasantness" is involved with "badness" remains unclear.There might be grounds for a moral claim against God, if he created childbirth and child-rearing in such a way that they involve unpleasantness.
All I am claiming is that unpleasantness is unavoidably disliked.
That's just circular. Being "unpleasant" simply means being "disliked." The "avoidably" is also gratuitous: what would "avoidance" have to do with either?
Wait.Well, to begin with, the question is not whether people have pro- or anti-responses to homosexuality; the question is whether homosexuality provides sufficient reason for either of these responses.The only things that intrinsically provide sufficient reason for pro- or anti-responses are pleasantness and unpleasantness;Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 8:09 pm Secondly, "anti-response." If I have an "anti-response" to something, it's just a feeling I have. Some people have an "anti-response" to homosexuality, and some have a strongly "pro-response" to it: can we solve the question of homosexuality's moral status with reference to how these people feel, when they feel the dead opposite?
If "unpleasantness" "intrinsically provides sufficient reason" for an "anti-response," and that is also your definition of "bad" (see above), then you are saying homosexuality is bad, and "intrinsically" so. And the basis for that would be no more than that some people "unavoidably" feel an "unpleasantness" about it.Which is not informative of anything, since all of the terms you use remain undefined. You've said nothing, essentially. We're no closer to knowing what you mean by "bad" than before, since we can't know what "provides sufficient reason" or "anti-reaction" or "unpleasantness" entail.It means exactly what I say it means in premise 1, i.e. 'provides sufficient reason for an anti-response.'Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 8:09 pmSo what is "bad"? Here, we come to the proposed first conclusion in the chain syllogism you've suggested:
What does "bad" mean, in this context now? "Unpleasant"? "Evoking an anti-reaction"?
It looks like you're plugging for a very weak form of Emotivism, in which your own personal emotions determine whether things are "good" or "bad," and your own sense of "sufficient reasons" is all that's available for us to use in moral reflection: and that's just not good enough for anybody else, is it?
No. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that that is what YOU might need in order to make your case, but you can't have it. Pain is an effect, but it doesn't tell us the moral quality of the thing with which it comes packaged. Some painful things are good, and some painless things are bad. Pain actually has no ability to tell us anything about the moral situation, or goodness or badness, or justification.You're suggesting here that my argument needs cases where the pain (or unpleasantness) actually occurs separately from other festures of the experience.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 8:09 pm Well, since "pain" is an effect, not a thing-in-itself, we really can't do that, can we? "Pain" is always the product of definite causes and actions, even when we don't happen to know what that cause is (as in the case of a mysterious disease or an unknown malevolence). So how can we say that we have a clear case of "pain" being " bad" in a "pain" that is divorced from all circumstances, since that never happens in real life?
No, I am definitely doing no such thing.This proves my previous point. You are asking whether the pain, considered as a distinct property, is morally worth it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 8:09 pm Is not the business of morals to weigh off, in fact, whether the pain incurred in a heroic act or a criminal one is "worth it" morally speaking, in that it's still moral/immoral for us to do, regardless of what pain is entailed?
I'm pointing out, rather, that the presence of pain tells us nothing, morally speaking. And that in ethics, we aren't at all concerned with whether or not people happen to like or feel pleasantness about what they're doing; we're only concerned with whether or not what we're asking them to do is RIGHT, even if it causes them pain, or even if it offers any pleasure.
The same critiques still work. You can see that.I am only defending hedonism, not utilitarianism,Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 5:33 amSo be it.
Here's just a start:
Utilitarianism, a moral philosophy focused on maximizing overall happiness, faces several criticisms.Are you asking a question? It needs a question mark, then.It is morally good to give someone fentanyl if (a) the giver does so freely and intentionally, and (b) it is the giver's judgment that this will lead to greater net pleasantness.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 2:06 am And the anaesthetic heals nothing. Making something painless doesn't make it "right" or "good." A person taking fentanyl will stop feeling pain, but is that morally good? Surely not. And it is likely to end up increasing his pain later, as well.
I'd be interested in how you think your moral theory would answer this. That's why I asked.So you haven't done anything to resolve the conflict between the theories that hold that "good" means "good intentions," as in Kant, and "good" means "pleasant outcomes or consequences," as per Mill et al. So we can't know whether or not dosing somebody with fentanyl is good or bad. This is what I mean about your theory being totally morally uninformative: we're no more clear on the situation than we were at the start, and your theory has added no useful information to our moral judgment at all.Of course this judgment may be mistaken, and the fentanyl may lead to net unpleasantness, in which case giving the fentanyl will be morally good (because it was done with a good intention) but instrumentally bad (because it has bad consequences).
Then it would mean you can't tell anything about goodness or badness until after all the participants are dead. And yes, that would be a very serious -- even terminal -- fault in any such theory. It literally could not inform any living person about the moral status of his/her situation. And it sure won't inform the dead.You cannot finally judge the goodness or badness of something until it itself and all its after-effects have ceased. That is no criticism of the theory. It's just how things are.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 2:06 am By the way, that's a further criticism of the "pleasure-pain" view of ethics: the timeframe. How long do we wait, in order to judge the goodness or badness of something, since there are long-term and short-term pleasures and pains?Then you need to read Hume. He did. And I linked you an article that quoted not only him but a bunch of other authors reacting to Hume.I don't think Hume actually said this,Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 2:06 am We're back to the old Is-ought controversy here: and to understand that, I can recommend a look at Hume's point about this. We can't get a moral conclusion from a merely factual premise.
I have said nothing about 'ought', so Hume's thoughts about the relation between 'is' and 'ought' are not relevant to my argument. I have talked only about 'good' and 'bad', not about 'ought'.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 2:06 am Again, sorry...you're just not understanding the Is-Ought controversy, perhaps. Here's a PN article that will help https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Thoughts_on_Oughts
If we say "It is moral to die for one's family," we are not asking, "Do you want to die?" We aren't asking, "Would you find it pleasant?" We aren't even asking, "Do you want to?" We're saying, instead, that it would be good/noble/courageous/admirable and right to do it, especially if you find it something you'd rather not do, and will be painful and hard, and you wouldn't otherwise do. In other words, something you "ought" to do, not something you feel like doing.
In that, all philosophers of ethics agree. It's you that has no ally on that. "Ought" is the essential term of all ethical/moral reflection...as also suggested by the OP here.You seem to be assuming that my argument entails a position on 'ought' that I have not stated.
Did you even read the article?
I did them all. And you ignored all I did. If that's what you do, I can't stop you.No. Getting to grips with my argument means doing the following:
1. Checking it for internal validity.
2. Seriously considering whether premise 1 is true or likely to be true, i.e. whether my account of the meaning of 'good' is plausible.
3. If you decide premise 1 is likely to be true, then seriously considering whether premise 2 is true or likely to be true, i.e. whether it is plausible that unpleasantness is an example of what premise 1 is talking about.
You haven't done any of these.No. I'm pointing out that you can't even use "pleasant" as a mere indicator of goodness. The two are utterly unrelated, and only ever occur in each other's company by accident. That's what I'm pointing out....when you say '"pleasant" isn't "good"', you are implying that I claimed that "pleasant" and "good" are synonyms.
Justify that claim. why is he "doing evil"? He likes it. He wants it. He can do it. And he finds it pleasant.Yes, of course the masochist is doing evil to himself, if we consider the TOTAL value of his action.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 8:09 pm Well, I can see you have a firm commitment to your view, though I think it's highly counterintuitive. Most people would not agree to so much, I think, as to believe that a sadist or masochist could be doing "good" to himself or others, simply if he is experiencing "pleasure" in the pain he causes himself or others.
I think that we all instantly recognize the masochist is doing evil to himself (say, carving his wrists with sharp objects, which is one of the things they're known to do), and the sadist is doing evil to others, regardless of the delight he's taking in doing it. And if we think otherwise, I suggest we've voided the words "good" and "bad" of any specific meaning at all...ANYTHING could be "good" or "bad"; and hence, nothing can be specifically either one.And of course the sadist is doing evil to others,
But he knows exactly what he's doing. And he finds it fun. How do you convince him he ought not to do it?
Are you actually suggesting that when an Atheist says, "That was a good meal," he means it was morally good?This isn't plausible, for three reasons.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 2:06 am Yes, that's its definition. It's the very essence of the good.
1. It would mean that when an atheist says, 'That was a good meal,' he means 'That meal was consonant and harmonious with the nature and purposes of God.'
this is answered simply by the fact that God does not change His nature. You needed an "if" to get your argument off the ground; but it was an "if" even less possible than, "If I could flap my arms hard enough, I could fly." It's outright impossible. So no, it's not a live criticism. It's not even one that the imagination can fabricate without misunderstanding what the word "God" (in reference to the only God that actually exists) means.2. If the nature of God changes tonight at midnight, so that torture, rape and murder are then consonant with it and being kind to others is opposed to it, it would mean that tomorrow we would wake up to find that torture, rape and murder had become good overnight, and being kind to others had become bad. But that is not what we would say. We would say that God had become bad overnight — and we would be right.
Oh, that's easy to answer. Because the ultimate good of man is fellowship with God. It's both the thing best for man, and the thing for which he was designed. It's good in every possible way, in fact. So you should seek what is consistent with the nature of God so as to be a fit companion for God. And if you seek anything else, you'll only be seeking that which is evil -- that which is all three of, hurtful to you, damaging to your relationship with your Creator, and ultimately defeating of your own whole reason for being in existence.3. If your theory were true, there would be no reason for us to seek what is good. On your theory, seeking what is good would be equivalent to seeking what is consistent with the nature of God. But if I then ask you, 'Why should I seek what is consistent with the nature of God?', either you can give me no reason at all, or, if you say, 'Because the nature of God is good', you are guilty of circularity.
Bravo.CIN2 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 10:31 pmI had prepared a detailed reply to this, but there seems little point in posting it, because it's clear that neither of us will ever convince the other.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:27 pmThat's a thoroughly unhelpful "definition." If fails to specify what those "reasons" would be, what the "anti-response" would entail, and what would justify calling "reasons" "sufficient." In other words, it says absolutely nothing specific.
Then it also makes unclear what the real connection between "unpleasant" and "bad" would be. Many things that are "unpleasant" are good...like cough medicine. And things which some people find "pleasant," like theft or adultery, could be "bad."I infer that unpleasantness has the property of being bad, which is not the same as saying that 'unpleasant' means the same as 'bad'.
So you've given nothing that informs us of anything.
Only if "unpleasant" and "bad" turn out to be the same, which even you now admit they are not...though even your claim that "unpleasantness" is involved with "badness" remains unclear.There might be grounds for a moral claim against God, if he created childbirth and child-rearing in such a way that they involve unpleasantness.
All I am claiming is that unpleasantness is unavoidably disliked.
That's just circular. Being "unpleasant" simply means being "disliked." The "avoidably" is also gratuitous: what would "avoidance" have to do with either?
Wait.Well, to begin with, the question is not whether people have pro- or anti-responses to homosexuality; the question is whether homosexuality provides sufficient reason for either of these responses.The only things that intrinsically provide sufficient reason for pro- or anti-responses are pleasantness and unpleasantness;
If "unpleasantness" "intrinsically provides sufficient reason" for an "anti-response," and that is also your definition of "bad" (see above), then you are saying homosexuality is bad, and "intrinsically" so. And the basis for that would be no more than that some people "unavoidably" feel an "unpleasantness" about it.Which is not informative of anything, since all of the terms you use remain undefined. You've said nothing, essentially. We're no closer to knowing what you mean by "bad" than before, since we can't know what "provides sufficient reason" or "anti-reaction" or "unpleasantness" entail.It means exactly what I say it means in premise 1, i.e. 'provides sufficient reason for an anti-response.'
It looks like you're plugging for a very weak form of Emotivism, in which your own personal emotions determine whether things are "good" or "bad," and your own sense of "sufficient reasons" is all that's available for us to use in moral reflection: and that's just not good enough for anybody else, is it?
No. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that that is what YOU might need in order to make your case, but you can't have it. Pain is an effect, but it doesn't tell us the moral quality of the thing with which it comes packaged. Some painful things are good, and some painless things are bad. Pain actually has no ability to tell us anything about the moral situation, or goodness or badness, or justification.You're suggesting here that my argument needs cases where the pain (or unpleasantness) actually occurs separately from other festures of the experience.
No, I am definitely doing no such thing.This proves my previous point. You are asking whether the pain, considered as a distinct property, is morally worth it.
I'm pointing out, rather, that the presence of pain tells us nothing, morally speaking. And that in ethics, we aren't at all concerned with whether or not people happen to like or feel pleasantness about what they're doing; we're only concerned with whether or not what we're asking them to do is RIGHT, even if it causes them pain, or even if it offers any pleasure.
The same critiques still work. You can see that.I am only defending hedonism, not utilitarianism,Are you asking a question? It needs a question mark, then.
It is morally good to give someone fentanyl if (a) the giver does so freely and intentionally, and (b) it is the giver's judgment that this will lead to greater net pleasantness.
I'd be interested in how you think your moral theory would answer this. That's why I asked.So you haven't done anything to resolve the conflict between the theories that hold that "good" means "good intentions," as in Kant, and "good" means "pleasant outcomes or consequences," as per Mill et al. So we can't know whether or not dosing somebody with fentanyl is good or bad. This is what I mean about your theory being totally morally uninformative: we're no more clear on the situation than we were at the start, and your theory has added no useful information to our moral judgment at all.Of course this judgment may be mistaken, and the fentanyl may lead to net unpleasantness, in which case giving the fentanyl will be morally good (because it was done with a good intention) but instrumentally bad (because it has bad consequences).
Then it would mean you can't tell anything about goodness or badness until after all the participants are dead. And yes, that would be a very serious -- even terminal -- fault in any such theory. It literally could not inform any living person about the moral status of his/her situation. And it sure won't inform the dead.You cannot finally judge the goodness or badness of something until it itself and all its after-effects have ceased. That is no criticism of the theory. It's just how things are.Then you need to read Hume. He did. And I linked you an article that quoted not only him but a bunch of other authors reacting to Hume.
I don't think Hume actually said this,
I have said nothing about 'ought', so Hume's thoughts about the relation between 'is' and 'ought' are not relevant to my argument. I have talked only about 'good' and 'bad', not about 'ought'.
If we say "It is moral to die for one's family," we are not asking, "Do you want to die?" We aren't asking, "Would you find it pleasant?" We aren't even asking, "Do you want to?" We're saying, instead, that it would be good/noble/courageous/admirable and right to do it, especially if you find it something you'd rather not do, and will be painful and hard, and you wouldn't otherwise do. In other words, something you "ought" to do, not something you feel like doing.
In that, all philosophers of ethics agree. It's you that has no ally on that. "Ought" is the essential term of all ethical/moral reflection...as also suggested by the OP here.You seem to be assuming that my argument entails a position on 'ought' that I have not stated.
Did you even read the article?
I did them all. And you ignored all I did. If that's what you do, I can't stop you.No. Getting to grips with my argument means doing the following:
1. Checking it for internal validity.
2. Seriously considering whether premise 1 is true or likely to be true, i.e. whether my account of the meaning of 'good' is plausible.
3. If you decide premise 1 is likely to be true, then seriously considering whether premise 2 is true or likely to be true, i.e. whether it is plausible that unpleasantness is an example of what premise 1 is talking about.
You haven't done any of these.No. I'm pointing out that you can't even use "pleasant" as a mere indicator of goodness. The two are utterly unrelated, and only ever occur in each other's company by accident. That's what I'm pointing out....when you say '"pleasant" isn't "good"', you are implying that I claimed that "pleasant" and "good" are synonyms.
Justify that claim. why is he "doing evil"? He likes it. He wants it. He can do it. And he finds it pleasant.Yes, of course the masochist is doing evil to himself, if we consider the TOTAL value of his action.And of course the sadist is doing evil to others,
But he knows exactly what he's doing. And he finds it fun. How do you convince him he ought not to do it?
Are you actually suggesting that when an Atheist says, "That was a good meal," he means it was morally good?This isn't plausible, for three reasons.
1. It would mean that when an atheist says, 'That was a good meal,' he means 'That meal was consonant and harmonious with the nature and purposes of God.'
this is answered simply by the fact that God does not change His nature. You needed an "if" to get your argument off the ground; but it was an "if" even less possible than, "If I could flap my arms hard enough, I could fly." It's outright impossible. So no, it's not a live criticism. It's not even one that the imagination can fabricate without misunderstanding what the word "God" (in reference to the only God that actually exists) means.2. If the nature of God changes tonight at midnight, so that torture, rape and murder are then consonant with it and being kind to others is opposed to it, it would mean that tomorrow we would wake up to find that torture, rape and murder had become good overnight, and being kind to others had become bad. But that is not what we would say. We would say that God had become bad overnight — and we would be right.
Oh, that's easy to answer. Because the ultimate good of man is fellowship with God. It's both the thing best for man, and the thing for which he was designed. It's good in every possible way, in fact. So you should seek what is consistent with the nature of God so as to be a fit companion for God. And if you seek anything else, you'll only be seeking that which is evil -- that which is all three of, hurtful to you, damaging to your relationship with your Creator, and ultimately defeating of your own whole reason for being in existence.3. If your theory were true, there would be no reason for us to seek what is good. On your theory, seeking what is good would be equivalent to seeking what is consistent with the nature of God. But if I then ask you, 'Why should I seek what is consistent with the nature of God?', either you can give me no reason at all, or, if you say, 'Because the nature of God is good', you are guilty of circularity.
I'm withdrawing from the debate.
(i) I don't feel leashed by the law, due to my privilege, which shows how light the yoke can be, and no, it can't protect me from determined predators. But I've got to be 70 and kept my looks. Tho' not the contents of my shed recently. And I have encountered lawlessness at, on the edge. More than most as I've chosen to go out on it, as well as it being unavoidable if one goes out at all. Memorably so. Therefore not that often. I've encountered civilians with guns twice. Disconcerting. In a high density population we don't need them. Farmers and grouse hunters have shotguns obviously. I only object to the latter on moral grounds.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 2:07 pm(i) That's how it works, doesn't it? A few bad eggs ruin it for everyone. You do right (or, don't do wrong), but the other guy does wrong and you end up gettin' jabbed in the keister for it with regulation and law, stuff that's supposed to keep him down but just leashes you.Like the vast majority.
You might say all we need is love. Me, I say what we need are shotguns and let's break some eggs.
(ii) I got you figured as more of a politburo-type so, no, no blood bathin' for you. Your tools are love and compassion and rehabilitation. Your revolution isMy eyes glitter at the thought of bathing in the blood of the ruling class.
(iii) As you like. Keep in mind, though: without natural rights, you got no warrant to object to being commodified. Even if natural rights are a fiction (they're not) only good can come from acknowledging and respecting 'em.I find the concept oxymoronic.
(iv) You don't need social justice: you need recognition and respect of natural rights. No politburo required.Well you will do if you won't have social justice.
(v) You mock me, sir.Behind which is a mind like a steel trap.
(vi) Your eyes are fine, I'm sure. It's the rosy glasses: take 'em off.Um sorry, my eyes are too dim.
(vii) As I say: friendly enemies.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 10:41 pmWe have so much in common. Infinitely more than our mere polar opposite worldviews.
(viii) There's just one Creator, and, of course you don't.
I think you get the idea of natural rights from your own psychology. The interface between one's natural rights and one's natural responsibilities to the other is a moving interface , it moves between persons and between cultures. So from your own psychology you get compassion and altruism and also need to protect your own interests and your own virtues. Also you like everyone else are indoctrinated to some extent by your culture which was probably mediated through your parents and peer group, and maybe also your school.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 6:29 pmSame way you do: I know, in my bones, my life is mine. My right to my life, myself, my liberty, my property, is exclusively mine. This is the common, the universal, intuition every person has. You see the line, the fence, between us, yes? You have all the say over your life and none over mine, and vice versa. So: murder, rape, slavery, theft, fraud, and all the nasty permutations and iterations of those, are wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.But Henry, how can you know what rights are natural?
Now: ask me about self-defense and defense of the other.
No doubt. Pretty damn sure, though, that guy, and all the others like him, would take a dim view about being murdered. As much as we good folks (HA!) these animals each know, without exception, I am my own...I am not a commodity for use, abuse, direction, destruction, and discard even as they use, abuse, direct, destroy, and discard other people.I bet somewhere there is some really horrible murderer who thinks his rights are natural.
Now: ask me where we get compassion and altruism from natural rights.