Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:32 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:07 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 10:37 pm
So they do. Xi Jinping is the demagogue in question. What is it Putin has done? Let me count the ways. Litvinenko, and the Salisbury poisonings for a start. Mohamed Bin Salman isnother religious autocrat.

What has he done to the Uygurs?
As for Putin - this sort of stuff has been happening between the western powers and russia for over 100 years. The west is no better. I don't see how we get the moral high ground.

Sculptor, my list of who needs God was never supposed to be complete. I only gave a few examples.

Did you say this? "...autocrats such as Putin considering his treatment of the Uighurs...". and was it a mistake or not?

Ginkgo wrote: The experts don't say that Kant is not objective, they say just the opposite.

Immanuel Can wrote: Name somebody who does.

I already did with the Johnson quote. As you obviously know Kant claims that the categorical imperative is an objective standard of morality. Johnson is saying that the CI is indeed the fundamental principle of morality. Johnson appears to be saying that Kant's objectivity/CI is the objective standard of morality. He is saying it,but I'm not.

Immanuel Can wrote: No, I did not. I merely pointed out that your say-so was nowhere near of the expert quality or volume of those who say Kant's morality is not the objective truth. I did not say that that made it impossible you were right...just that it was highly improbable.

If it looks like a bandwagon fallacy, smells like a bandwagon and tastes like a bandwagon fallacy, then it is a bandwagon fallacy.

Immanuel Can wrote: Then all you're saying is Kant pretended or wrongly thought his ethics were objective, but they were not...which is exactly right. But now you've got no candidate system for an objectively correct theory of ethics, since you're admitting Kant was wrong about that, and the OP is unanswered again.

There you go again, attributing something to me that I never said. I am not admitting anything of the sort. Within the framework of Kantian ethics Kant's objectivity is consistent.

Immanuel Can wrote: Okay. That's what you were (read literally) saying earlier. But if you misspoke, I won't hold you to it.

I was not saying that earlier, literally or otherwise,I have been arguing consistently throughout.

BTW I still don't see what all of this is relevant to the OP. Perhaps you could inform me.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:56 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:32 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:07 am
What has he done to the Uygurs?
As for Putin - this sort of stuff has been happening between the western powers and russia for over 100 years. The west is no better. I don't see how we get the moral high ground.

Sculptor, my list of who needs God was never supposed to be complete. I only gave a few examples.

Did you say this? "...autocrats such as Putin considering his treatment of the Uighurs...". and was it a mistake or not?

It was my mistake. I really thought I corrected it.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:55 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:56 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:32 pm
Sculptor, my list of who needs God was never supposed to be complete. I only gave a few examples.

Did you say this? "...autocrats such as Putin considering his treatment of the Uighurs...". and was it a mistake or not?

It was my mistake. I really thought I corrected it.

Okay. It was just clarity I was looking for. I thought maybe the Uygurs' lands extending into Russia had involved them is problems with Putin.

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:04 am Then all you're saying is Kant pretended or wrongly thought his ethics were objective, but they were not...which is exactly right. But now you've got no candidate system for an objectively correct theory of ethics, since you're admitting Kant was wrong about that, and the OP is unanswered again.

There you go again, attributing something to me that I never said. I am not admitting anything of the sort. Within the framework of Kantian ethics Kant's objectivity is consistent.

Let's suppose that's true (It's not, because Kant had three different CI's, but let's make believe it is true, just to grant your premise.) If Kant is only consistent with Kant, but not with the objective truth about morality, then Kant's ethics are not objective, even if they are consistent. One can, after all, be "consistently" wrong...rational on the terms stipulated, but with the terms stipulated being untrue.

That's the difference between "valid" and "true" in logic. (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduct ... d_Validity) You're saying Kant's theory was "valid" logically, but "untrue" objectively. I say the CI is both obviously inconsistent AND objectively untrue. But the difference between your view and mine is immaterial here: both of us know, and now you also say, that Kant's ethics is not objectively true.

BTW I still don't see what all of this is relevant to the OP. Perhaps you could inform me.

I did, earlier. But I will again.

The explanation is this: if you say that God is unnecessary for morality, then it's also obvious that you must be able to say how. If there is no way to explain the objective truth about morality without reference to God, then you must be wrong or bluffing.

So now we know, and both say, that Kant doesn't work as any candidate for objective moral description. If his view is even "valid" it is still not "true."

Do you have another "how" for how God can be eliminated, and morality still be objective?

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:20 am Well, of course not.

comments?

Morality is rooted in our nature. We obey it for the sake of survival that survival is the result of evolution. The reality in its core is indifferent.

Immanuel Can wrote: Then all you're saying is Kant pretended or wrongly thought his ethics were objective, but they were not...which is exactly right. But now you've got no candidate system for an objectively correct theory of ethics, since you're admitting Kant was wrong about that, and the OP is unanswered again.

No, that's not exactly right, Kant's ethics are objective. I think we will have to agree to disagree with this one, we don't seem to be getting anywhere.

Ginkgo wrote: There you go again, attributing something to me that I never said. I am not admitting anything of the sort. Within the framework of Kantian ethics Kant's objectivity is consistent.

Immanuel Can wrote: Let's suppose that's true (It's not, because Kant had three different CI's, but let's make believe it is true, just to grant your premise.) If Kant is only consistent with Kant, but not with the objective truth about morality, then Kant's ethics are not objective, even if they are consistent. One can, after all, be "consistently" wrong...rational on the terms stipulated, but with the terms stipulated being untrue.

There is no one overriding objective truth of morality, Christian ethics included.

Immanuel Can wrote: That's the difference between "valid" and "true" in logic. (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduct ... d_Validity) You're saying Kant's theory was "valid" logically, but "untrue" objectively. I say the CI is both obviously inconsistent AND objectively untrue. But the difference between your view and mine is immaterial here: both of us know, and now you also say, that Kant's ethics is not objectively true.

I didn't say that, you are again attributing statements to me that I didn't make.

Immanuel Can wrote: The explanation is this: if you say that God is unnecessary for morality, then it's also obvious that you must be able to say how. If there is no way to explain the objective truth about morality without reference to God, then you must be wrong or bluffing.

So now we know, and both say, that Kant doesn't work as any candidate for objective moral description. If his view is even "valid" it is still not "true."

Do you have another "how" for how God can be eliminated, and morality still be objective?

I am not saying God should be eliminated from ethics,Christian ethics is not without its critics. If I were a atheist then I am free to choose any ethical theory I like. If you are saying that objectivity is the yardstick for morality then I might be, for example, a Platonist when it comes to ethics. Plato's ethics are purely objective.

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:50 am

Immanuel Can wrote: Then all you're saying is Kant pretended or wrongly thought his ethics were objective, but they were not...which is exactly right. But now you've got no candidate system for an objectively correct theory of ethics, since you're admitting Kant was wrong about that, and the OP is unanswered again.

No, that's not exactly right, Kant's ethics are objective.

You only mean "consistent with his own suppositions," (they're not, by the way), but "objective" means "objectively true." They're certainly not that, and by your own admission they're not.

There is no one overriding objective truth of morality, Christian ethics included.

You mean, "There is one objective morality." And that's right. But the question is which ethical system best reflects the objective truth about morality. And I agree that any morality which fails to reflect this truth is deficient. Objective truth is the standard against which all must be measured.

Immanuel Can wrote: That's the difference between "valid" and "true" in logic. (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduct ... d_Validity) You're saying Kant's theory was "valid" logically, but "untrue" objectively. I say the CI is both obviously inconsistent AND objectively untrue. But the difference between your view and mine is immaterial here: both of us know, and now you also say, that Kant's ethics is not objectively true.

I didn't say that, you are again attributing statements to me that I didn't make.

Yes, you did. You wrote, "I'm not saying Kant is the objective truth about ethics..." Bingo. Now you want to reverse that?

If I were a atheist then I am free to choose any ethical theory I like.

No, if you were a consistent Atheist, you'd not be free to choose any moral system at all. Moral systems, then, would be a fiction --an artifact of societies, or of individual prejudice, with nothing more than that to them. An Atheist would be free to disregard the whole lot. As Nietzsche, the great Atheist "saint" put it, if Atheism is taken seriously, you're "beyond good and evil," allegedly.

Plato's ethics are purely objective.

Ah. So now BOTH Kant's and Plato's ethics are "purely objective"?

I'm now convinced you have no idea what the word "objective" means, because that's logically impossible.

Immanuel Can wrote: Then all you're saying is Kant pretended or wrongly thought his ethics were objective, but they were not...which is exactly right. But now you've got no candidate system for an objectively correct theory of ethics, since you're admitting Kant was wrong about that, and the OP is unanswered again.

Nonsense, I don't admit anything of the sort. Please provide relevant quote.

Immanuel Can wrote: You only mean "consistent with his own suppositions," (they're not, by the way), but "objective" means "objectively true." They're certainly not that, and by your own admission they're not.

I am consistent within his framework of ethics. Please provide the relevant quote.

Immanuel Can wrote: You mean, "There is one objective morality." And that's right. But the question is which ethical system best reflects the objective truth about morality. And I agree that any morality which fails to reflect this truth is deficient. Objective truth is the standard against which all must be measured.

No, I didn't mean that at all. Objective truth is not the standard. There is no one overriding system of objective morality, Christian ethics included.
One can easily come up with a mythical being and claim that they are the supreme authority of ethics who are beyond reproach. Plato's ethics does a similar thing with his idea of the Supreme Goodness.

Immanuel Can wrote: That's the difference between "valid" and "true" in logic. (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduct ... d_Validity) You're saying Kant's theory was "valid" logically, but "untrue" objectively. I say the CI is both obviously inconsistent AND objectively untrue. But the difference between your view and mine is immaterial here: both of us know, and now you also say, that Kant's ethics is not objectively true.

I didn't say that, you are again attributing statements to me that I didn't make. Please show me the relevant quote in full.

Immanuel Can wrote: Yes, you did. You wrote, "I'm not saying Kant is the objective truth about ethics..." Bingo. Now you want to reverse that?

Quote mining now are we? Please provide the full quote.

Immanuel Can wrote: No, if you were a consistent Atheist, you'd not be free to choose any moral system at all. Moral systems, then, would be a fiction --an artifact of societies, or of individual prejudice, with nothing more than that to them. An Atheist would be free to disregard the whole lot. As Nietzsche, the great Atheist "saint" put it, if Atheism is taken seriously, you're "beyond good and evil," allegedly.

It's a nonsense to say that atheists should be "beyond good and evil." Maybe in Nietzsche"s twisted mind, but not in the real world.

Immanuel Can wrote: Ah. So now BOTH Kant's and Plato's ethics are "purely objective"?

I didn't say Kantian ethics is purely objective. Stop attributing things I didn't say. It is growing tiresome.

Immanuel Can wrote: I'm now convinced you have no idea what the word "objective" means, because that's logically impossible.

That's funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

I hope people are realising that just because Kant thought that morals could be codified objectively that this thought was no more than an opinion, and a contentious one at that.

He starts with the notion of the Categorical Imperative. (CI)
Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
This is a bold assertion that we all have a choice in. It is not of the quality that "gravity is things falling" offers. An apple has no choice in the matter, and whether you accept determinism or not, humans are neither obliged nor even obligated to accept that instruction.
That the CI is true is an OPINION. That the CI is rational is debatable.

Like most statements claimed to be facts, the CI is a presumption . Physical facts start with an empirical assumption, this is nothing more than reason. Reason depends!

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: Then all you're saying is Kant pretended or wrongly thought his ethics were objective, but they were not...which is exactly right. But now you've got no candidate system for an objectively correct theory of ethics, since you're admitting Kant was wrong about that, and the OP is unanswered again.

Nonsense, I don't admit anything of the sort. Please provide relevant quote.

I already did. And you said it, and you can't remember when or why? But maybe you can figure out what you meant if I give you more of it, and here's the whole context, as much of it as there is. You said...

"I'm not saying Kant is the objective truth about ethics, I am saying his ethics are objective- big difference. As I said in a previous post his ethics are objective within the frame work of his theory, just like other ethical theories are contained within a framework."

So if Kant is not telling the objective truth, he's lying or fooling himself. And as I pointed out, if all he is is consistent "within a framework" of his own wrong suppositions, then he's wrong through and through. All you've got is a consistent error, an objectively wrong theory.

But as it happens, Kant isn't even consistent "within his framework." He had three very different CI's, as everybody who's ever read or studied Kant knows.

It's a nonsense to say that atheists should be "beyond good and evil." Maybe in Nietzsche"s twisted mind, but not in the real world.

No, Nietzsche was an honest Atheist, at least in this.

He knew that if there's no God, there's no way to rationalize morality anymore either. And at least he had the courage to embrace the logic of his own position. Many modern Atheists, like say, Singer, want to deny the existence of God, but keep ethics. Nietzsche saw this stratagem for what it is: cowardly inconsistency, and a lack of Atheistic conviction. It's like wanting to jump over a cliff and stop in the air half way down...one can't do it in a world where natural consequences apply.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:37 pm

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: Then all you're saying is Kant pretended or wrongly thought his ethics were objective, but they were not...which is exactly right. But now you've got no candidate system for an objectively correct theory of ethics, since you're admitting Kant was wrong about that, and the OP is unanswered again.

Nonsense, I don't admit anything of the sort. Please provide relevant quote.

I already did. And you said it, and you can't remember when or why? But maybe you can figure out what you meant if I give you more of it, and here's the whole context, as much of it as there is. You said...

"I'm not saying Kant is the objective truth about ethics, I am saying his ethics are objective- big difference. As I said in a previous post his ethics are objective within the frame work of his theory, just like other ethical theories are contained within a framework."

So if Kant is not telling the objective truth, he's lying or fooling himself. And as I pointed out, if all he is is consistent "within a framework" of his own wrong suppositions, then he's wrong through and through. All you've got is a consistent error, an objectively wrong theory.

But as it happens, Kant isn't even consistent "within his framework." He had three very different CI's, as everybody who's ever read or studied Kant knows.

It's a nonsense to say that atheists should be "beyond good and evil." Maybe in Nietzsche"s twisted mind, but not in the real world.

No, Nietzsche was an honest Atheist, at least in this.

He knew that if there's no God, there's no way to rationalize morality anymore either. And at least he had the courage to embrace the logic of his own position. Many modern Atheists, like say, Singer, want to deny the existence of God, but keep ethics. Nietzsche saw this stratagem for what it is: cowardly inconsistency, and a lack of Atheistic conviction. It's like wanting to jump over a cliff and stop in the air half way down...one can't do it in a world where natural consequences apply.

Oh, I get it now, you are wanting to say that Christian ethics is the one and only objective theory of morality. This is why you have got it in for Kant, he had the audacity to claim his ethics is objective. Well, I am here to tell you that Christian ethics is not the only objective theory of morality,
there are numerous objective moral theories, Christian ethics is just one of them. In the example I gave earlier, Plato's ethics is objective in the same way as Christian ethics are objective.

In the actual world most atheists are like Singer, not like Nietzsche. Indeed, most atheists would not know anything about Nietzsche, they see themselves as free to adopt whatever moral theory they choose, that's just the way it is.

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:41 am Oh, I get it now, you are wanting to say that Christian ethics is the one and only objective theory of morality.

I did not go so far. (I would, because if I would not, why would I be a Christian? But I did not do it here.) I merely pointed out that when you said Christianity was included in objective morality, you were logically entailing that, whether you realized it or not.

This is why you have got it in for Kant,

No, I have not "got it in for Kant," anymore than his other critics do. We see many of the same flaws in Kant's ideas, and object to them on rational grounds, not out of a mere personal motive. If you've read any of his critics, you know that's true.

there are numerous objective moral theories

If you mean, "Objectively, the fact is that there are many theories," then you're right. If you mean, "The many theories are, themselves, all objectively true," that is logically impossible, since they flatly contradict on many points. And it's a basic axiom of logic that a claim and its opposite negation cannot be simultaneously true.

So, for example, as a practice of logical deduction, Atheism could be true (There are no gods), or Polytheism could be true (There are many gods), or Monotheism could be true (There is one God). But one thing we know beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt is that all three cannot be simultaneously telling us the objective truth about God -- not if each claim is using the words in the same way. That would make them an absolute contradiction of one another.

And you can see that there are various ethical systems that depend on all three of these claims, which tells us more certainly than the sun coming up in the morning, that two of the three types of systems are simply objectively untrue. Period.

In the actual world most atheists are like Singer, not like Nietzsche.

I agree. Singer is inconsistent, and Nietzsche was far more consistent. But if you think about it, what you say is not a compliment to the rational consistency of most "actual world Atheists."

However, it might say something somewhat good about them that they are too instinctively moral to behave like Nietzsche and the logic of Atheism would lead them to. Indeed, I have found most Atheists to be of this inconsistent but much better type. They don't think they're ubermenschen, they don't put themselves "beyond good and evil," and they don't necessarily despise things like pity and mercy and all the precepts of Judeo-Christian morality, the way Nietzsche did.

They're often better people than their Atheism would warrant them being.

Q: Is God necessary for morality?

Ideas of "God" have been necessary for the development of morality within the collective human psyche, perhaps mainly as a means of at tempting to 'tame the beast' so that eventually Humans might flourish.[(of a living organism) grow or develop in a healthy or vigorous way, especially as the result of a particularly congenial environment.]

In that, there has been an obvious battle from the beast who prefers things to continue as they have always been [apparently][naturally enough] with The Beast in charge of the flow of direction of Humanity.

In that, [perhaps] The Beast is not interested in silly ideas of "God" interfering with its agenda.

So then one must identify The Beast's agenda and from that, see if one can deduce whether morality is necessary to that agenda.

In the mean time, "God" will suffice...

Immanuel Can wrote: No, I have not "got it in for Kant," anymore than his other critics do. We see many of the same flaws in Kant's ideas, and object to them on rational grounds, not out of a mere personal motive. If you've read any of his critics, you know that's true.

How do you explain your avatar? It looks to me as though you want to to ban Kant. This is hardly conducive to open discussion.

Immanuel Can wrote: If you mean, "Objectively, the fact is that there are many theories," then you're right. If you mean, "The many theories are, themselves, all objectively true," that is logically impossible, since they flatly contradict on many points. And it's a basic axiom of logic that a claim and its opposite negation cannot be simultaneously true.

Not necessarily the case, Platonic ethics doesn't contradict Christian ethics and vice versa.

Immanuel Can" wrote:
And you can see that there are various ethical systems that depend on all three of these claims, which tells us more certainly than the sun coming up in the morning, that two of the three types of systems are simply objectively untrue. Period.

You are just assuming there is only one true God. There are no rational grounds to justify this claim. For all you and I know there may be more than one God. So, how do you know there is only one true God?

Immanuel Can wrote: I agree. Singer is inconsistent, and Nietzsche was far more consistent. But if you think about it, what you say is not a compliment to the rational consistency of most "actual world Atheists."

I wouldn't hold up Nietzsche as any sort of example.